Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused but Ignorance of law is no excuse.Factual Situation: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the 'Manifest for Transit'. On 26th Nov. 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the 'Manifest' of the aircraft. (CLAT 2012)

🎲 Try a Random Question  |  Total Questions in Quiz: 566  |  🧠 Study this quiz with Flashcards
This question is part of a full practice quiz:
Legal Aptitude Test — practice the complete quiz, review flashcards, or try a random question.

Each question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. You have to apply the principles to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. Remember: you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given for every question.

Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused but Ignorance of law is no excuse.<br>Factual Situation: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the 'Manifest for Transit'. On 26th Nov. 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the 'Manifest' of the aircraft. (CLAT 2012)






ADVERTISEMENT