1. Conviction under Defence of India Rules for selling controlled goods above the maximum fixed price and abetting such contraventions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1947 Supreme(SC) 30
Privy Council At Patna
Sir John Beaumont, Lord Du Parcq , Lord Uthwatt, Justice Lord Thankerton, JJ.
Srinivas Mall Bairoliya and another -Appellant
Versus
Emperor -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 72 of 1946; Patna Appeal No. 27 of 1945
Decided On : 28-04-1947
Advocates Appeared:
India Office., Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., Crown, B.J. Macenna, R. Ritson, U. Sen-Gupta , W.W.K. Paye
India Office., Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., Crown, B.J. Macenna, R. Ritson, U. Sen-Gupta , W.W.K. Paye
The court established that mens rea is essential for criminal liability under the Defence of India Rules unless explicitly excluded by statute, rejecting the principle of automatic vicarious liability for a master regarding a servant's crimes in such contexts.
Headnote:(A) Defence of India Rules - Rules 81(2), 81(4), 119(1), 130(1) - Defence of India Act, 1939 - Price Control - Any sum exacted in addition to the lawful price, which must be paid to obtain delivery of the goods, constitutes part of the purchase price, regardless of whether it is termed a bribe or illegal gratification or whether it is retained by the employee. (Para 7)
(B) Defence of India Rules - Rule 130(1) - Cognizance of offences - A report in writing by a public servant does not require a detailed formulation of charges or names of witnesses to enable a court to take cognizance; a summary report based on the examination of witnesses is sufficient to protect against malicious charges by private individuals. (Para 9)
(C) Defence of India Rules - Rule 119(1) - Notice of orders - Where an order is made, there is a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that official acts have been regularly performed and that the order was duly promulgated. (Para 13)
(D) Indian Penal Code - Section 107 - Abetment - Evidence of transactions not subject to the specific charge is admissible to prove intention to aid the commission of an offence or an intentional omission to stop an illegal practice under Section 14 of the Evidence Act. (Para 14) (E) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Mens Rea - A master is not vicariously liable for the crimes of a servant under delegated legislation unless the statute clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea. Unless the statute excludes it, a defendant should not be found guilty of a criminal offence without a guilty mind. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
A salt agent and his employee were convicted for selling salt above the maximum price fixed by a district authority. The employee demanded additional payments from retail dealers as a condition for delivery. The agent was convicted of abetting these actions. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of the definition of "price," the validity of the report used for cognizance, the lack of proof regarding the notice of the price order, and the principle of vicarious liability.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the additional charges constituted part of the purchase price. The report by the public servant was sufficient for taking cognizance. The presumption of regular official acts supported the finding that notice of the order was given. The evidence of other transactions was relevant to prove abetment. However, the court disagreed with the lower court's view that a master is automatically vicariously liable for a servant's crime without mens rea.
Issues: Whether additional payments demanded for delivery constitute "price"; whether a summary report satisfies Rule 130(1); whether notice of the order was duly published; and whether a master is vicariously liable for a servant's offence without mens rea.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any payment required to obtain delivery of controlled goods is part of the price. It affirmed that official acts are presumed regular. Crucially, it ruled that mens rea is a necessary constituent of a crime unless the statute explicitly excludes it, meaning vicarious liability does not apply to these criminal offences without proof of a guilty mind.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
Lord Du Parcq:-
The appellants were convicted on 4-11-1943 by the Deputy Magistrate of Darbhanga, under the DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES relating to the control of prices and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions and the sentences. Applications to the High Court of Patna for the revision of the judgment of the Sessions Judge were dismissed. The appellants obtained special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court to His Majesty in Council.
[2] Srinivas Mall Bairoliya (hereafter called appellant 1) was at the material time acting as Salt Agent for part of the district of Darbhanga. He had been appointed to this office in October, 1942, by the District Magistrate. It was his duty to sell to licensed retail dealers the supplies of salt which were allocated by the central Government to his part of the Darbhanga District. Sitaram Prasad, who will be referred to hereafter as appellant 2, was employed by appellant 1, who had entrusted him with the duty of allotting the appropriate quantity of salt to each retail dealer, and noting on the buyer's licence the quantity which he had bought and received.
[3] The proper performance of these duties was essential to the due enforcement of orders made under the DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES . By Rule 81 (2) of these Rules, the validity of which is not in question, Provincial Governments were empowered to make orders to provide for controlling the prices at which articles or things of any description whatsoever might be sold. The Defence of India Act, 1939, under which the Rules were made, empowered the Provincial Governments to delegate the exercise of their powers to certain officers, and the power to provide by order for controlling the prices at which various articles (among them salt) might be sold otherwise than in a primary wholesale market had been in fact delegated to District Magistrates. Rule 81 (4), of the Rules provided for the punishment of persons guilty of contravening any such order.
[4] Both the appellants were jointly charged with having sold salt on three days in July, 1943, to three named traders, in each case at a price exceeding the maximum price which had been fixed by order of the District Magistrate. The salt mentioned in the charges was of two kinds, Sambhar and rock salt, the controlled price of the former being Rs. 3-2-0 per maund, and of the latter Rs. 3-5-6. Appellant 1 was also separately charged, in respect of the same sales, with having abetted appellant 2's contravention of the order. The Deputy Magistrate acquitted appellant 1 of the substantive offences, but convicted him of the three charges of abetting. He convicted appellant 2 on each of the three charges made against him, Both appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, appellant 1 for a term of 18 months, the 2nd for 12 months: they were also fined Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500 respectively.
[5] In addition to the Price Control Officer (Mr. A. Karim) and his clerk, twelve persons were called as witnesses at the trial, three of whom were the dealers named in the charges. The other nine were also dealers who had bought salt from appellant l and had to deal with appellant 2. The evidence of the twelve dealer witnesses is summarized in the appellants' case as follows :
"That upon their application on various dates in the month of July, 1943, to appellant 2 for the supply of a stated number of bags of salt, he refused to supply the required quantity unless the dealer paid to him a sum of Re. 1 in respect of each bag of Sambhar salt and Rs. 2 in respect of each bag of rock salt; that they paid the sums so demanded; that appellant 2 thereupon entered on their licences the number of bags of salt which they required and remitted Re. 1 or Rs. 2 of the amount so paid ; that the demand of such payments was made with the knowledge and approval of appellant 1 ; and that, upon such payments being made, they presented their licences so endorsed, to Satyanarain" (anothe
