Sudhir takes away the jewellery from the showroom without purchasing it with the intention of showing it to his wife. He was accused of theft. He alleged that he was not aware of the fact that what he did was a crime and is penalised under the law. The court said that he would still be penalised because:

Ignorantia Facti Excusat - Ignorantia Juris Non-Excusat

The correct answer is Option (3) → Ignorantia Facti Excusat - Ignorantia Juris Non-Excusat

This principle translates to "Ignorance of fact excuses, but ignorance of law does not excuse." In the context of Sudhir's case, even though he claimed he was unaware that his actions constituted a crime, the court held him accountable because ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.

• Qui Facit Per Alium, Facit Per Se: This Latin phrase means "He who acts through another does the act himself." It refers to accountability for actions performed by another on one’s behalf but is not directly applicable here.

• Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium: This principle means "Where there is a right, there is a remedy." While it pertains to legal rights and remedies, it doesn’t apply to the issue of knowledge of the law.

• De Minimis Lex Non Curat: This translates to "The law does not concern itself with trifles." It means that minor issues or trivial matters are not worth the time of the law. This is also not relevant in the context of theft.