Tests of Genuine Mistake

Supreme Court of India
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Author: .....J.
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra
 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
Sushil Ansal Appellant
 Versus
State Through CBI Respondent
(With Crl. Appeals No.598/2010, 599/2010, 600-602/2010, 604/2010, 605-
616/2010 and 617-627/2010)
The argument
that absence of any such protection notwithstanding the occupiers/owners of the cinema may be
protected in terms of Section 79 of the IPC is obviously founded on the plea that the appellants were
under a mistake of fact when they in good faith believed themselves to be justified in law in
exhibiting films in the theatre, by reason of a license issued under the Act. The plea that the
appellants were under a mistake of fact, however, remains unsubstantiated. The concept of mistake
of fact has been explained by Russel on Crime in the following words:
When a person is ignorant of the existence of relevant facts, or mistaken as to them,
his conduct may produce harmful results which he neither intended nor foresaw.
xxx xxx xxx Mistake can be admitted as a defence provided (1) that the state of things
believed to exist would, if true, have justified the act done, and (2) the mistake must
be reasonable, and (3) that the mistake relates to fact and not to law.
139. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal in their book Law of Crimes (23rd Edn.) Page 199 similarly explains
the term mistake in the following words:
'Mistake' is not mere forgetfulness. It is a slip 'made, not by design, but by
mischance'. Mistake, as the term is used in jurisprudence, is an erroneous mental
condition, conception or conviction induced by ignorance, misapprehension or
misunderstanding of the truth, and resulting in some act or omission done or
suffered erroneously by one or both of the parties to a transaction, but without its
erroneous character being intended or known at that time.
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 62
It may be laid down as a general rule that an alleged offender is deemed to have acted
under that state of things which he in good faith and on reasonable grounds believed
to exist when he did the act alleged to be an offence.
140. In the case at hand, the appellants-occupiers of the cinema, have not been in a position to
identify the facts qua which they were under a mistake nor is it clear as to how any such mistake of
fact would have justified their act in law, leave alone satisfy the third requirement of the mistake of
fact being reasonable in nature. The three tests referred to by Russel in the passage extracted above
are not, therefore, satisfied in the case at hand to entitle the appellant occupiers to the benefit of
Section 79 of the IPC