ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA
Meaning:
‘An act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also legally blameworthy.’
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea explains that for any act to be illegal in
nature it must be done with a guilty mind. Thus to convict the defendant, it must
be proved that the criminal act was carried out with a criminal intend. Not only is
the act of the accused important but the intention of the accused to do the specific
act is equally important to prove the guilt of the accused. Thus it can be concluded
that mere commission of a criminal act or breach of law is not sufficient to
constitute a crime. It should be combined with the presence of wrongful intent.
Further the mens rea is important to understand the severity of the crime
committed. The essential ingredient is the blameworthy condition of the mind. Its
absence can negate the liability. However the statement without a guilty mind
there is no crime is subjected to certain exceptions such as strict liability. Under
strict liability, it is not necessary to show that a defendant possessed the relevant
mens rea for the act committed.
The two basic components of criminal law is Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Actus
Reus is the wrongful act committed and Mens Rea is the state of mind behind
such acts. The Latin maxim Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is derived
from Mens Rea. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea further explains as to
how Mens Rea is applicable in criminal law. It states that a person is guilty of a
criminal act only if such acts are accompanied by a criminal intention. This
maxim is used to determine whether an act committed is criminal in nature or not.
1
Case Law:
In the case of Brend v. Wood1, Lord Goddard, C.J. held that:“It is of the utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the subject that
a court should always bear in mind that, unless a statute, either clearly or by
necessary implication, rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, the
court should not find a man guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless
he has a guilty mind.”
In R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State Of Kerala2, it was observed that “Criminal
guilt would attach to a man for violations of criminal law. However, the rule is
not absolute and is subject to limitations indicated in the Latin maxim, actus non
facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. It signifies that there can be no crime without a guilty
mind. To make a person criminally accountable, it must be proved that an act,
which is forbidden by law, has been caused by his conduct, and that the conduct
was accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, there are two
components of every crime, a physical element and a mental element, usually
called Actus Reus and mens rea respectively.”
AD VALOREM
Meaning:
‘According to value.’
The term ad valorem is derived from the Latin ‘ad valentiam’, meaning "to the
value." It is commonly applied to a tax imposed on the value of property. Real
property taxes that are imposed by the states, counties, and cities are the most
1
2
(1946) 175 L.T. 306
Criminal Appeal No. 372
2
common type of ad valorem taxes. Ad valorem taxes can, however, be imposed
upon Personal Property.
Illustration:
An article of commerce may be subjected to an ad valorem tax in proportion to
its value, which is determined by assessment or appraisal.
Ad Valorem tax is an important revenue source to the government. Owners of
properties may be subject to such Ad Valorem tax which is levied by more than
one authority. Property taxes is a famous example across the globe. Here, both
the local municipality as well as the country may levy this tax.
Ad Valorem taxes refer to a percentage of the property's fair market value of the
assessed property. Fair market value is the estimated selling price of the property,
assuming a transaction is entered between an interested buyer and a willing seller.
The tax authority may obtain all exclusive facts about the property and in a
situation where neither of the party is compelled to complete the transaction. Fair
market value can be more simply understood as just a reasonable price.
Ad Valorem taxes generally are levied on both real property and personal
property. Real property includes buildings, land, and other such structures
including improvements to the property. Example of an improvement of the
property is a garage added to a single-family home or a road built on the land.
Most commonly, personal property ad valorem taxes are levied only on major
personal property holdings, such as a car or boat. Related personal property, such
as household appliances or clothing, is not usually subject to personal property
taxes.
AMICUS CURIAE
Meaning:
‘Friend of Court.’
Amicus curiae is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as friend of the court,
that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information
on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a
matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief,
testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on
a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies
with the discretion of the court.
3
Illustration:
The role of an amicus is often confused with that of an intervener who has a direct
interest in the outcome of the lawsuit. The role of an amicus is as stated by Lord
Salmon in Allen V. Sir Alfred Mc. Alpine & Sons Ltd.3 where he said:
I had always understood that the role of an amicus curiae was to help the court by
expounding the law impartially, or if one of the parties were unrepresented, by
advancing the legal argument on his behalf.
The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief
in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant. Appellant cases are
normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court
case under appeal; attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favourable to
their clients. Where a case may have broader implications, amicus curiae briefs
are a way to introduce those concerns, so that the possibly broad legal effects of
court decisions will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case.
In India, the courts have time and again welcomed the idea of permitting amicus
curiae to associate themselves with proceedings, generally involving public
interest. By doing so, the court is guided not only by the academic perspective
required for the particular case, but also enables the court to have an
understanding which would allow them to do justice in its entirety.
The person who is usually allowed by the courts, in India, to act as amicus curiae
are people who represent the unbiased will and opinion of the society.
In innumerable cases in India, the courts have allowed, or, on its own motion,
have asked various people to act as amicus curiae to the proceedings. A very fine
example of this is the famous, or rather the infamous BMW Case which has yet
again been in news recently due to the fact that both the defence and the
prosecution lawyers have been suspended by the Delhi High Court on charge of
driving the witnesses to turn hostile. In the said case, Advocate Arvind Nigam
who was appointed as the amicus curiae by the Delhi High Court has played a
crucial part in securing justice.
3
(1968) 2 Q.B. 229
4
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
Meaning:
‘Hear the other side’
Audi Alteram Partem states that no person shall be condemned, punished by a
law court without being heard. Or in other words a party cannot be left to undergo
any degree of punishment without an opportunity of being heard. This is
considered to be a principle of fundamental justice or equity. For any judgement
to be legally valid it should be passed after giving both the parties the right to
defend themselves and put forward there side of the story. The maxim Audi
Alteram Partem is divided into two facets in accordance with the principle of
natural justice. The first being notice followed by hearing. All the effected parties
must be given a notice before the proceedings takes place. The notice id given to
make the parties aware of the facts and issues in the case that is going to be
adjudicated. This is done in order to give the parties sufficient amount of time in
order to prepare for their defence. It is a sine qua non of the right of fair hearing.
The second facet of Audi Alteram Partem is the rule of hearing. The parties
should be allowed to represent themselves and state the facts in accordance to
their understanding. They should be heard by the court of law.
Illustration:
For example, whenever any person is arrested that person needs to be brought
before the court of law within twenty four hours of his arrest. This is known as
Habeas Corpus. If any person is not being able to represent themselves through a
lawyer then it the duty of the state to provide for legal aid. If any accused is not
able to afford legal services then he has a right to free legal aid.
In Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala and others4, it was
observed that the aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it
negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas
not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law
of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great
deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two
rules namely : (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case and (2) no decision
4
1969 SCR (1) 317
5
shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (Audi
Alteram Partem).
In the case of Union of India v. W.N. Chadha5, the Apex Court has observed:
The rule of Audi Alteram Partem is a rule of justice and its application is excluded
where the rule will itself lead to injustice. Thus, there is exclusion of the
application of Audi Alteram Partem rule to cases where nothing unfair can be
inferred by not affording an opportunity to present and meet a case. This rule
cannot be applied to defeat the ends of justice or to make the law ‘lifeless, absurd,
stultifying and self-defeating or plainly contrary to the common sense of the
situation’ and this rule may be jettisoned in very exceptional circumstances where
compulsive necessity so demands.
ASSENTIO MENTIUM
Meaning:
‘Meeting of minds.’
Assentio Mentium is a Latin word that means “meeting of minds” or mutual
assent (express or implied) of the parties to the contract. Consensus Ad Idem is a
Latin synonym for Assentio Mentium. Example, while arriving at contract for
sale of A’s house there was assentio mentium between A’s and the B (purchaser)
as to the terms and conditions of the contract. Consensus ad idem in contract law
means there has been a meeting of the minds of all parties involved and everyone
involved has accepted the offered contractual obligations of each party.
Consensus ad idem is a Latin term that means, simply, agreement. This is the first
principle that's the foundation of enforceable contracts because for contracts to
be enforceable, agreement or a meeting of the minds of all involved parties, is
required.
A meeting of the minds, or agreement, is a required element in order for a contract
to be enforceable. So, all terms of the offer must be accepted or there is no
consensus ad idem and there is, because of that, no contract. If there is an obvious
vagueness or uncertainty in the contract's terms, it isn't possible to get an objective
agreement. Sometimes, a contract may appear to be valid, but it's actually the
5
AIR 1993 SC 1082
6
result of an error by one party or even both parties. The mistakes can rest in the
contract's terms or the nature of the contract's subject matter.
Illustration:
One easy example of two parties agreeing to a contract but not having a meeting
of the minds is when terminology gets mixed up between the parties. The buying
party contacts the selling party with a request to buy the seller's stock, with the
intention of buying the stock that's on hand. The selling party thinks the buyer is
asking to buy the entire business and says yes. Both parties appear to be agreeing
to the deal, but there is no true meeting of the minds because the terminology
used, while accurate for both parties, does not mean the same thing to each party.
In practical terms, the court has to use a body of precedent and theory when
deciding the fairest way to evaluate and assign the intentions and details of any
contract being evaluated.
BONA FIDE
Meaning:
‘Good Faith.’
Bona fide is a Latin term meaning "good faith". In legal terms, it is often used to
refer to a purchaser or holder who takes something without fraud, deceit, or
knowledge of a lien or superior claim by another. Bona fide refers to a quality of
genuineness.
Illustration:
A "Bona fide Holder" of a bill of exchange, is one who has taken a bill which
appears ordinary on its face, before it was overdue, and in good faith and for
value, and without notice of any defect in the title of the person who negotiated
it to him.
The following is an example of a state statute dealing with bona fide merchants:
"No license for a going out of business sale or a distress merchandise sale shall
be issued except to a bona fide licensed merchant of the State of Alabama, and
no such license shall be granted to an applicant who sets up an establishment or
who acquires an interest in an establishment solely or principally for the purpose
of conducting a going out of business sale or distress merchandise sale."
7
BONA VACANTIA
Meaning:
‘Goods without an owner.’
Bona Vacantia is used to describe a situation where a certain amount of goods are
unclaimed over a period of time. No ownership is claimed over those goods or
property. When such a situation arises then the goods or the property goes to the
government and the government serves as the custodian of those goods or
property. The government has to take such goods and act as their owners for
perpetuity. The cases of such ownership arises when the goods or the property
are being abandoned when the person dies without any living heirs. Such situation
can also arise when a business or unincorporated association is dissolved the
assets thereof are not distributed appropriately. Other process how such situation
arises are when a trust in the path of failing or when the property owner in
nowhere to be found and does not any information about its whereabouts. In other
words it is a property without any claim. Bona Vacantia is used for those goods
and property which does not have any ownership. Ownership and property are
two interrelated concepts. There cannot be any ownership without any property
and also there can be any property without ownership. However Bona Vacantia
are those goods and property which loses its ownership over a period of time ad
remains the same for long time.
Illustration:
If the owner of large estate dies without living any heirs then that estate becomes
Bona Vacantia.
In the case of Sita Ram Jaiswal and others v. State of U.P. and others6, it was
observed by the court that that the right of the King to take property by escheat
or as Bona Vacantia was recognized by common law of England. Escheat
property was the lord’s right of re-entry on real property held by a tenant dying
intestate without lawful heirs. It was an incident, of feudal tenure and based on
the want of a tenant to perform the feudal services. On the tenant dying intestate
6
2016 (118) ALR 146
8
without leaving any lawful heirs, his estate came to an end and the lord was in by
his own right and not by way of succession or inheritance from the tenant to reenter the real property as owner.
The Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Bahadur Tandon v. Shankerlal7
observed that if the company had a subsisting interest in the lease on the date of
dissolution such interest must necessarily vest in the Government by escheat or
as Bona Vacantia. In India the law is well settled that the property of an intestate
dying without leaving lawful heirs and the property of a dissolved Corporation
passes to the Government by escheat or as Bona Vacantia.
In the case of State of Gujarat and Another v Shri Ambica Mills Limited
Ahmedabad and Another8 it was observed it is only if no claim is made for a
period of 4 years from the date of the publication of the first notice, or, if a claim
is made but rejected wholly or in part, that the State appropriates the unpaid
accumulations as bona vacantia. It is not as if unpaid accumulations become bona
vacantia on the expiration of three years. They are, no doubt, deemed to be
abandoned property under section 6(A) 1, but they are not appropriated as bona
vacantia until after claims are invited in pursuance to public notice and disposed
of. At common law, abandoned personal property could not be the subject of
escheat. It could only be appropriated by the sovereign as bona vacantia The
Sovereign has a prerogative right to appropriate bona vacantia. And abandoned
property can be appropriated by the Sovereign as bona vacantia.
CAVEAT EMPTOR
Meaning:
Let the buyer beware.”
A commercial transaction involves two parties i.e. seller and buyer, both must
take every care to protect their own interests and rights. When a person is buying
goods, he should examine them thoroughly as the seller is under no obligation to
disclose the whole truth about the goods. The meaning of the maxim caveat
emptor is “let the buyer beware” which means that the buyer has a duty towards
7
8
AIR 1980 SC 575
AIR 1974 SC 1300
9
seller to provide him information about his requirement and the seller will supply
as per his requirements.
The principle of caveat emptor applies in case of purchase of specific goods
where he can use his own judgment and can buy goods in his own responsibility.
For e.g. purchase of a painting. The provision of Caveat Emptor is enshrined in
Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act which provides that “Subject to the
provisions of this act or any other law for the time being in force there is not
implied condition or warranty as to quality or fitness for any particular purpose
of goods supplied.”
Illustration:
In Ranbir Singh & Shankar singh Thakur v. Hindustan General Electric
Corporation Ltd, it was held that Section 16(1) applies where the buyer requires
goods for a specific purpose and he expressly or impliedly makes that purpose
known to the seller, he relies on the skills of the seller and the seller’s usual course
of business is to sell such goods whether he is the actual producer or not.
In Frost v. Aylesbury Dairy Co. Ltd., it was held that when the plaintiff brought
milk from the defendant, the milk contained germs of typhoid fever and the
plaintiff’s wife took the milk and got an infection as a result of which she died.
Plaintiff was entitled to recover damages.
In Ward v. Hobbes, it was held that a seller cannot use artifice or disguise in
order to conceal the defects in the products as it would amount to have committed
fraud by the vendor against the vendee. But the doctrine does not impose a duty
to disclose all the defects in the product sold, on the vendor.
In Wallis v. Russel, the court while explaining the scope of the doctrine said that
Caveat Emptor only implies that a buyer must take care. It does not mean that a
buyer shall take a chance. The doctrine applies where a buyer exercises his own
judgment and voluntarily chooses the product he needs to buy.
In Jones v. Padgett, the plaintiff purchased an indigo cloth from the defendant
for making liveries but failed to inform his intention to the seller. The cloth
purchased turned out to be not suitable for making liveries and the plaintiff sued
the defendant for loss but the court held that the defendant was not liable under
the principle of caveat emptor.
In Raretto v. T.R. Pruce, the plaintiff asked the defendant (who was a dentist)
for a set of false teeth, the defendant gave a set of false teeth which did not fit into
the mouth of plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant for refund of the price paid
10
for the set. The defendant pleaded the doctrine of caveat emptor but court rejected
the plea and held that defendant should have provided a set suitable for the
plaintiff.
CORPUS DELICTO
Meaning:
‘Body of crimes.’
The term Corpus Delicti, which literally means “body of crime,” is best
understood in realizing a person cannot be put on trial for a crime, unless it is first
proven that the crime happened to begin with. In other words, the prosecution
would need to demonstrate that something bad happened as a result of a law
having been violated, and that someone – the defendant – was the one who
violated it. There are two elements of Corpus Delicti in any offense:
1. A certain consequence, or injury, has occurred.
2. The consequence, or injury, is a result of a person’s intentional, unlawful
act.
In other words, it refers to the principle that a crime must be proved to have
occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime
For example:
Steven believes that his neighbour, Frank, stole his lawnmower from his
backyard. He makes a police report, but acknowledges that he has no proof that
Frank took it, but claims that Frank has coveted the lawnmower, and he must
have taken it because it is missing. In order for the district attorney’s office to be
able to prosecute Frank for the crime of theft, there must be proof that (1) Steven’s
lawnmower was stolen, and (2) that Frank stole it.
Statements by other neighbours seem to support Frank’s claim that Steven has
memory lapses, and that he frequently accuses neighbours and other people of
wrongdoing. In this example, corpus delicti has not been proven, as there is no
evidence a crime has actually been committed, neither is there evidence that any
person is criminally responsible for anything.
11
While the principle of corpus delicti guides the integrity of the investigation and
prosecution process, modern investigation techniques and evidence interpretation
are often enough to gain a conviction in the absence of a body.
Remember that the Latin term means “the body of the offense,” not necessarily
referring to the body of the victim. To convict someone of murder in such a case,
the prosecution must first prove the two required elements, that the victim was
killed, and that the death was the result of a criminal act, using evidence other
than what might be found on the missing body. In this way, the legal system
defines corpus delicti as the fact of a crime having actually been committed.
DAMNUM SINE INJURIA
Meaning:
“injury with no damages.
Damnum means = Damage in the sense of money, Loss of comfort , service ,
health etc.
Sine means = Without
Injuria means = Infringement of a legal right / injury to legal right.
It refers to injury which is being suffered by the plaintiff but there is no violation
of any legal right of a person. In such circumstances, where there is no violation
of the legal right of but the injury, or damage is being suffered by the plaintiff,
the plaintiff can’t bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not
actionable in law, unless there is some infringement of a legal right is present.
In other words it means damage which is not coupled with an unauthorised
interference with the plaintiff's lawful right. Causing of damage, however,
substantial, to another person is not actionable in law unless there is also a
violation of a legal right of the plaintiff. This is generally so when the exercise of
legal right by one results in consequential harm to the other.
Case Law:
Gloucester Grammar School case9:
Defendant was school teacher in plaintiff's school. Because of some dispute
defendant left plaintiff's school and started his own school. As defendant was very
9
(1410)
12
famous amongst students or his teaching, boys from plaintiff’s school left and
joined to defendant’s school. Plaintiff sued the defendant for monetary loss
caused. It was held that defendant was not liable. Compensation is no ground of
action even though monetary loss is caused if no legal right is violated of
anybody. The defendant had lawfully setup his school and did not violate any
legal right of the plaintiff in doing so. The plaintiff had, no doubt, suffered
considerable damages because of the increased competition (resulting out of the
plaintiff’s act to set up a new school) but none of his legal right were infringed
by the defendant and hence, the defendant cannot be held liable just because the
plaintiff suffered monetary losses.
Mayor & Co. of Bradford v. Pickles10:
Corporation of Bradford was supplying water from its well. Defendant (Pickles)
owned adjoining land to the land from where the Corporation of Bradford was
supplying the water and had dug up a well. Defendant conveyed it to the
Corporation of Bradford that he was willing to sell his land to them. He
approached the Mayor of the Bradford Corporation to discuss the issue. But, the
negotiations failed. The Corporation of Bradford argued that the defendant dug
well in his own land and, thereby, cut the underground supply of water of the
corporation’s well. This had caused monetary loss to corporation because there
was no adequate supply of water to discharge to the people who lived under the
jurisdiction of the Corporation. Corporation of Bradford sued Pickles for damages
for malice. It was ruled that defendant is not liable, because defendant's act was
not wrongful as it had not violated any legal right of the plaintiff (Corporation of
Bradford). The court observed that the defendant’s act or conduct was
unneighbourly but no action lay against him as he had not infringed any right of
the plaintiff.
Chesmore v/s Richards11:
Plaintiff (a landowner as well as mill owner) was running a mill on his own land
and for this purpose he was using the water of the stream for a long time (about
six years). The defendant dug an extensive well in his own land with the aim of
supplying water to the inhabitants of district. Consequently, thereby, the
defendant’s actions cut off the underground water supply of stream because
percolation the water resulted in gathering of the water in the well of the
defendant. The quantity of water of stream was reduced and the mill was closed
for non-availability of water as the mill owner was not able to get the required
10
11
(1895) AC 587
(1859) 7 HLC 349
13
amount of water (from his own well). Plaintiff sued deft for damage. It was ruled
that defendant was not liable because of principle of damnum sine injuria. The
defendant’s actions did not result violation of any legal right of the plaintiff,
although the plaintiff suffered actual loss in money.
The defendant’s actions were lawful as he was entitled to use his land in
whichever way he wanted and he did not infringe any right of the plaintiff.
14