Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse. Facts: X was a passenger…

The correct choice is: “X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable.”

X knew all the facts: he knew he was carrying 34 kg of gold and that he had not declared it. What he did not know was the law, namely the new notification that required gold in transit to be declared. That notification was in force when he landed. Under the maxim ignorantia juris non excusat, ignorance of the law is no defence. These are the facts of State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (Supreme Court, 1965), where the passenger was held liable even though he could not have known of the recent notification.

“X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago.” is a plea of ignorance of law, which the principle rejects. “X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable.” is wrong because X was not ignorant of any fact. “X’s liability would depend on the discretion of the court.” is wrong because the principle gives a definite answer.