Assertion: There are some exceptions to the thumb rule of mens rea to be present for an act to be considered as crime. Reasoning: For the offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, mens rea is not required to be proved.

Both Assertion (A) and reasoning (R) are correct and R is the correct explanation of A. Assertion (A) is true but Reasoning (R) is not correct. Assertion (A) is not true but Reasoning (R) is correct. Both Assertion (A) and reasoning (R) are correct and but R is not the correct explanation of A.

Both Assertion (A) and reasoning (R) are correct and but R is not the correct explanation of A.

There are some exceptions to the thumb rule of mens rea to be present for an act to be considered as crime. These are generally the offences which arise due to a 'strict liability'. These offences are also termed vicarious or deemed liability offences. Examples of such offences can be found in Special Acts such as the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Customs Act, 1962, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provide for deemed offences by directors / responsible officers of a company, if a company has committed a contravention / offence. Such deemed liability disregards whether there was actually any mens rea or not on the part of the person concerned.