Question Description
Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused, but ignorance of law is not excused. fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport of Bombay on 28 November 1962, it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of gold bars in his baggage and that he had not declared it in the 'manifest for transit'. On 26 November 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying it's earlier exemption making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in a manifest of the aircraft.(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago (b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable (c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable (d) X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused, but ignorance of law is not excused. fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport of Bombay on 28 November 1962, it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of gold bars in his baggage and that he had not declared it in the 'manifest for transit'. On 26 November 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying it's earlier exemption making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in a manifest of the aircraft.(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago (b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable (c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable (d) X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused, but ignorance of law is not excused. fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport of Bombay on 28 November 1962, it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of gold bars in his baggage and that he had not declared it in the 'manifest for transit'. On 26 November 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying it's earlier exemption making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in a manifest of the aircraft.(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago (b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable (c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable (d) X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court?.

Solutions for Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused, but ignorance of law is not excused. fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport of Bombay on 28 November 1962, it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of gold bars in his baggage and that he had not declared it in the 'manifest for transit'. On 26 November 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying it's earlier exemption making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in a manifest of the aircraft.(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago (b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable (c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable (d) X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court? 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 Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused, but ignorance of law is not excused. fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport of Bombay on 28 November 1962, it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of gold bars in his baggage and that he had not declared it in the 'manifest for transit'. On 26 November 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying it's earlier exemption making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in a manifest of the aircraft.(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago (b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable (c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable (d) X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused, but ignorance of law is not excused. fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport of Bombay on 28 November 1962, it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of gold bars in his baggage and that he had not declared it in the 'manifest for transit'. On 26 November 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying it's earlier exemption making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in a manifest of the aircraft.(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago (b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable (c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable (d) X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court?, a detailed solution for Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused, but ignorance of law is not excused. fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport of Bombay on 28 November 1962, it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of gold bars in his baggage and that he had not declared it in the 'manifest for transit'. On 26 November 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying it's earlier exemption making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in a manifest of the aircraft.(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago (b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable (c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable (d) X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court? has been provided alongside types of Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused, but ignorance of law is not excused. fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport of Bombay on 28 November 1962, it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of gold bars in his baggage and that he had not declared it in the 'manifest for transit'. On 26 November 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying it's earlier exemption making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in a manifest of the aircraft.(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago (b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable (c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable (d) X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Legal Principle: Ignorance of fact is excused, but ignorance of law is not excused. fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport of Bombay on 28 November 1962, it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of gold bars in his baggage and that he had not declared it in the 'manifest for transit'. On 26 November 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying it's earlier exemption making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in a manifest of the aircraft.(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago (b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable (c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable (d) X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.