Following the High Court's decision, the State of Maharashtra appealed to the Supreme Court, which subsequently reinstated the conviction.

Issues

1. Is mens rea necessary for an offenceunder Section 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947?

2. Can George be held guilty for bringing gold into India without declaration under Sections 8(1) and 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947?

3. Does the ban imposed by the Central Government apply to personal items carried by an individual without the required permissions?

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, overturned the High Court's ruling and upheld George's conviction. The Court emphasized that mens rea was not a requisite element for this specific offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The Court also concluded that the requirement to declare gold in a manifest was applicable regardless of whether it was personally carried or shipped as cargo. Ultimately, the Court ordered George to serve the remainder of his sentence, accounting for time already served in prison.

Justice Subbarao dissented, but the majority view highlighted the intent to curb gold smuggling and uphold the legislative structure established to regulate gold transactions in India.

K.M. NANAVATI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1959)

Facts

Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a Commander in the Indian Navy, was stationed in Mysore but resided in Bombay with his wife, Sylvia, and their three children. During Nanavati's absences due to his duties, Sylvia engaged in an adulterous relationship with Prem Ahuja. Upon returning home on April 29, 1959, Nanavati confronted Sylvia, who confessed to the affair. Distressed, he attended a film with his family before arming himself with his service revolver under a false pretext and proceeding to Ahuja's residence. Following a verbal confrontation, where Ahuja rebuffed Nanavati's request to marry Sylvia, Nanavati shot Ahuja, resulting in his death. Nanavati subsequently surrendered to the police.

The jury trial resulted in a verdict of not guilty (8:1), determining Nanavati acted under grave and sudden provocation. The presiding judge, dissatisfied with the verdict, referred the matter to the Bombay High Court under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Issues

1. Did the Bombay High Court possess the jurisdiction to overturn the jury's verdict under Section 307 of the CrPC?

2. Were there misdirection’s in the jury’s charge that warranted intervention?

3. Did Nanavati's actions constitute premeditated murder or culpable homicide due to provocation?

4. Was the jury's decision influenced by media coverage and public sentiment?

Judgment

The Bombay High Court, after meticulous review, found that Nanavati's actions indicated premeditation rather than impulsiveness, negating the claim of provocation. The Court determined that sufficient time elapsed between the provocation and the act, allowing for reflection.

The High Court convicted Nanavati of murder under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings, emphasizing that the incident did not meet the legal criteria for provocation as outlined in Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. The Court highlighted that the jury's decision was not supported by reasonable evidence, concluding that it lacked a rational basis.

The ruling further prompted a re-evaluation of the jury trial system in India, given concerns over jurors being susceptible to external influences, thereby leading to the eventual abolition of jury trials.

S. VARADARAJAN VS. STATE OF MADRAS (1964)

Facts

S. Natarajan, an Assistant Secretary in the Government of Madras, lived in Nungambakkam with his wife and two daughters, Rama and Savitri. On September 30, 1960, Rama observed Savitri conversing with their neighbor, Varadarajan, and later discovered Savitri's intention to marry him. Concerned about this relationship, Natarajan took Savitri to live with a relative in Kodambakkam on the same day. However, on October 1, 1960, Savitri left the relative’s house, met Varadarajan, and they registered their marriage at the Registrar’s office with witnesses. They then stayed at Ajanta Hotel before traveling to various locations.

Following a complaint from Natarajan, the police located Varadarajan and Savitri in Tanjore. Varadarajan was subsequently charged under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping a minor. The Madras High Court convicted him and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment. Varadarajan appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

The main legal issues raised were:

1. Whether a minor can abandon the guardianship of their guardian voluntarily.

2. Whether the act of taking Savitri away from lawful guardianship had been established by the prosecution.

Court’s Observations and Ratio

The Supreme Court made several significant observations:

• Savitri had voluntarily left her guardian’s house without any inducement or coercion from Varadarajan.

• Varadarajan did not persuade or coerce Savitri into marrying him or accompanying him to the Registrar’s office.

• Savitri, being on the verge of adulthood and an educated college student, was capable of making independent decisions.

The Court emphasized the distinction between kidnapping a minor from a guardian and the voluntary decision of a minor to leave. It reiterated the legal principle established in Bai Tara Devi v. State of Rajasthan, stating that the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused actively induced or persuaded the minor to leave her guardianship.

Judgment

On September 9, 1964, the Supreme Court acquitted Varadarajan of the charges. The Court held that Savitri's departure from her father's house was entirely voluntary and initiated by her own desire to marry Varadarajan. This judgment highlighted the importance of assessing the voluntariness of actions in cases involving minors. The ruling established a precedent balancing the protective role of the law for minors with the rights of individuals approaching adulthood to make their own choices