Question Description
Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the alternatives.Principle Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.Fact X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on November 28, 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 November 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.a)X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days agob)X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusablec)X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusabled)X's liability would depend on the discretion of the courtCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the alternatives.Principle Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.Fact X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on November 28, 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 November 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.a)X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days agob)X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusablec)X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusabled)X's liability would depend on the discretion of the courtCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the alternatives.Principle Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.Fact X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on November 28, 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 November 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.a)X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days agob)X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusablec)X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusabled)X's liability would depend on the discretion of the courtCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the alternatives.Principle Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.Fact X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on November 28, 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 November 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.a)X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days agob)X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusablec)X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusabled)X's liability would depend on the discretion of the courtCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the alternatives.Principle Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.Fact X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on November 28, 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 November 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.a)X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days agob)X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusablec)X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusabled)X's liability would depend on the discretion of the courtCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the alternatives.Principle Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.Fact X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on November 28, 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 November 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.a)X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days agob)X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusablec)X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusabled)X's liability would depend on the discretion of the courtCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the alternatives.Principle Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.Fact X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on November 28, 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 November 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.a)X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days agob)X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusablec)X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusabled)X's liability would depend on the discretion of the courtCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the alternatives.Principle Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.Fact X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on November 28, 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 November 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.a)X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days agob)X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusablec)X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusabled)X's liability would depend on the discretion of the courtCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the alternatives.Principle Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.Fact X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on November 28, 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 November 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.a)X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days agob)X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusablec)X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusabled)X's liability would depend on the discretion of the courtCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.