The statement highlights factors typically considered during sentencing, which influences the 'quantum' or severity of criminal liability. In general criminal law, liability is established by proving both actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind or criminal intent). Motive, while distinct from mens rea, often provides context for the intent and can influence the perception of the crime's gravity and the offender's character. The magnitude refers to the extent of harm caused, and the character of the offender relates to their background, previous conduct, and likelihood of reform. These elements are crucial for a holistic assessment of culpability and for determining an appropriate punishment.

However, the landscape of criminal liability shifts significantly when considering statutory offences that dispense with the requirement of mens rea. These are often referred to as strict liability offences. In such cases, the prosecution only needs to prove the actus reus; the mental element (intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence) is not a prerequisite for conviction. Examples include certain public welfare offences like food adulteration, environmental pollution, traffic violations, or regulatory breaches.

The rationale behind strict liability is often public policy: to protect society from harm, to ensure a higher standard of care in certain activities, or to simplify prosecution where proving mens rea would be unduly difficult and undermine the regulatory purpose.

In the context of strict liability offences, the statement's assertion that "the law takes into account the motive" becomes problematic for establishing guilt. If mens rea is absent, then the offender's motive, which is intrinsically linked to their mental state, becomes irrelevant for conviction. The focus is solely on whether the prohibited act was committed. For instance, a person selling adulterated food might genuinely believe it to be pure, but if the statute imposes strict liability, their good motive or lack of intent to harm will not absolve them of guilt.

However, even in strict liability cases, the "magnitude" of the offence (e.g., the scale of adulteration or pollution) and the "character" of the offender (e.g., a first-time offender versus a habitual violator) can still play a significant role during the sentencing phase. While not impacting the determination of guilt, these factors help the court decide the appropriate quantum of punishment, such as the fine amount or the length of imprisonment.

Indian courts, while generally adhering to the principle that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence unless excluded by statute, have recognized strict liability in specific contexts. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (1965) held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes it. Subsequent judgments have affirmed this, emphasizing that the legislative intent to exclude mens rea must be clear.

In conclusion, while motive, magnitude, and character are vital considerations for determining the appropriate punishment (quantum of liability) in most criminal cases, the absence of mens rea in statutory offences fundamentally alters the equation. For conviction in strict liability offences, motive is generally irrelevant, though the magnitude of the harm and the offender's character may still influence the severity of the sentence. The statement holds true for sentencing considerations but needs qualification regarding the initial determination of guilt in strict liability regimes.