1.

Legal Maxim: Acta exteriora iudicant interiora secreta

2. Literal Meaning: Outward acts indicate the inward intent.
3. Explanation and Origin: This legal maxim is not particularly eloquent, in either
Latin or English. It can be inferred that the maxim tends to say that the “outward acts
of a person tends to indicate towards the thoughts hidden within.” it deals with intent,
which is a key constituent of an offence. Men rea (or “guilty mind”) is an element of
most criminal offenses. And since the finder of fact cannot read the mind of a person,
the judge or jury is occasionally required to infer intent from the defendant’s conduct
(both previous and subsequent) or what is known as Actus Reus. This is where the
maxim comes into picture. It is similar to the saying that you are presumed to intend
the natural and probable consequences of your acts.
4. Illustration: Rahul fires a gun in the direction of Aman.  If the bullet Aman, Rahul is
presumed to have intended to kill Aman if the circumstances are such that Aman’s
death is “natural and probable.”

5. Case Reference:

A. N Narayanan vs. Adjudicating Officer, Sebi1

the court propounded that, so far as this case is concerned, the subsequent conduct of pledging
their shares at artificially inflated prices, based on inflated financial results and raising loan on
them would indicate that they had deliberately and with full knowledge committed the illegality
and hence the principle of “acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta” (meaning external actions
reveals inner secrets) applies with all force.

B. V.Koodalingappan vs. P.L.Prema2

The court held that we re-collect and call-up the following maxim Acta exteriora indicant
interiora secreta. It is ex facie and prima facie clear that the landlady and her husband because of
their non-employment under Rajeswari should essentially ferret out ways and means to eke out
their livelihood and in that connection they want to have their own building for running their

1
A. N Narayanan v. Adjudicating Officer, Sebi, A.I.R. 2013 (4) S.C.J 212 (India).
2
B. V.Koodalingappan v. P.L.Prema, LQ 2012 HC 14123 (India).
medical establishments and as such, the advantage of the landlady would out-weigh the hardship
of the tenant, who is running a grocery shop and he could shift it to some other place and conduct
the same concern. However, the tenant, who is carrying forward the business of the grocery shop
would require sufficient time to shift his business because of his necessity to recover the dues
payable to him by his consumers.

C. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Others. Vs. Securities and Exchange
Board of India and Another3

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed Sahara India Rea1 Estate Corporation Limited
("SIRECL") and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited ("SHICL") (both collectively
referred to as the "Appellants") to refund to the SEBI the USD 3.16 billion they had raised along
with an interest of 15% by November 30, 2012, and also to furnish information, along with the
application forms etc., of the 6.6million subscribers from whom the Appellants had raised the
money.

1. Legal Maxim: Abundans cautela non nocet

3
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr, (2013)
1 S.C.C. 1 (India).
 2. Literal Meaning: Abundant Caution does no harm.
3. Explanation and Origin- There is no harm in being cautious. The legal maxim suggests
that a person can never be too careful and hence even excessive precautions don’t hurt
anyone. Great caution or care or an excess of it, is preferable to an insufficiency of it.
Apparently a variant on maxima, is not to be found in Roman law with any definition
exactly parallel to that of a legal maxim in the Medieval or modern sense of the word.

4. Case Reference:

A. V. Vaiyapuri V. M. Pavayi & Another4

The judge opined that my mind is reminiscent of the following maxims: (i) Ex abundanti cautela
– Out of abundant caution; to be on the safe side. (ii) Abundans cautela non nocet – Abundant
caution does no harm.

B. Krishnan Nair v. Sivaraman Nambiar5

The court propounded the following "A definition which first tells us what a thing means and
then goes on to say what it includes, can use the inclusive device for three entirely different
purposes. First, by way of illustration, or of enumeration of the forms the thing defined
commonly assumes, by naming things that clearly come within the meaning given. Secondly, for
roping in things that, either partly or in whole, would not come within the meaning. Thirdly, by
way of abundant caution, so as to put it beyond doubt that certain things do come within the
meaning".

C. Canara Bank V. State6

Certainly neither a firm nor an association is a company as defined in the Travancore Companies
Act, 1114, wherefore the inclusive device has not been used in S.3(8) of the Travancore Act on
the principle abundans cautela non nocet (there is no harm done by great caution).

4
A. V. Vaiyapuri v. M. Pavayi & Anr, LQ 2011 HC 18054 (India).
5
Krishnan Nair v. Sivaraman Nambiar, 1967 KLT 78 (India).
6
Canara Bank v. State, LQ 1981 HC 2312 (India).