SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Bom) 46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(K. Subba Rao, J. C. Shah and R. S. Bachawat JJ.)
NATHULAL Appellant.
V.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHRespondent.
Advocates Appeared
For appellant -G. S. Pathak; S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath of Rajinder Narain and Co.
For respondent -B. Sen and I. N. Shroff.

Mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and clause 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. The absence of mens rea, such as the appellant's genuine belief in having a valid license, negates the criminal intent required for conviction.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 7 - MADHYA PRADESH FOODGRAINS DEALERS LICENSING ORDER, 1958 - CLAUSE 3 - MENS REA AS AN INGREDIENT OF OFFENCE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a dealer in foodgrains, was prosecuted for storing 885 maunds and 2 1/4 series of wheat for sale without a license, in contravention of section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and clause 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. The appellant pleaded that he had applied for a license and believed it would be issued to him, negating the presence of mens rea.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court set aside the acquittal order of the trial court, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine. The Supreme Court, on appeal, held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under section 7 of the Act and clause 3 of the Order.

Issues: 1. Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and clause 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. 2. Whether the appellant's belief that he had a valid license, based on his application and subsequent actions, negates the presence of mens rea.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence, unless expressly or impliedly excluded by the statute. 2. The object of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is to control trade in certain commodities in the general public interest. Excluding mens rea would defeat the Act's object. 3. The appellant's belief that he had a valid license, supported by his application, fee deposit, and submission of returns, negates the presence of mens rea. He did not intentionally contravene the provisions of the Act and the Order.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's conviction and acquitting the appellant. The bail bond was discharged, and any fine paid was ordered to be returned.

JUDGMENT

SUBBA RAO J. -The appellant is a dealer in foodgrains at Dhar in Madhy Pradesh. He was prosecuted in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate. Dhar, for having in stock 885 maunds and 2 1/4 series of wheat for the purpose of sale without a licence and for having thereby committed an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act X of 1955), hereinafter called the Act. The appellant pleaded that be did not intentionally contravene the provisions of the said section on the ground that he stored the said grain after applying for a licence and was in the belief that it would be issued to him. The learned Additional District Magistrate, Dhar, found on evidence that tbe appellant had not the guilty mind and on that finding acquitted him. On appeal a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, set aside the order of acquittal and convicted him on the basis that in a case arising under the Act "the idea of guilty mind" was different from that in a case like theft and that he contravened the provisions of the Act and the Order made thereunder. It sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of the fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Hence the appeal.

2. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly contended that mens rea was a necessary ingredient of the offence under section 7 of the Act, that as on the finding given by the learned Magistrate the appellant had no intention to contravene the provisions of the Act and the Order made thereunder, the High Court went wrong in setting aside the order of acquittal.

3. The material provisions of the Act and the Order made thereunder may be read at this stage.

Section 7 of the Act.

(1) If any person contravenes any order made under section 3 -

(a) he shall be punishable -

(ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine:

The Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958.

Clause 2. - -1n this Order, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) "dealer" means a person engaged in the busine88 of purchase, sale or storage for sale, of anyone or more of the food grains in quantity of one hundred maunds or more at anyone time whether on ones own account or in partnership or in associtation with any other person or as a commission agent or arhatiya, and whether or not in conjunction with any other business.

Clauses3. -(1) No person shall carryon business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority.

(2) For the purpose of this clause, any person who stores any foodgrains in quantity of one hundred maund. or more at anyone time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the foodgrain for the purposes of sale.

A combined reading of these provisions shows that if a dealer in foodgrains as defined in the Order carries on business as a dealer without a licence, he commits an offence under section 7 of the Act and is liable to imprisonment and fine thereunder. Sub -clause (2) of clause 3 of the Order raises a rebuttable presumption that if a dealer stores food grains in quantity of 100 maunds or more he shall be deemed to have stored the said foodgrains for the purpose of sale. The question is whether under section 7 of the Act a factual non -compliance of the Order by a dealer will amount to an offence thereunder even if there is no mens rea on his part. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that mens rea is an integral part of the offence; whereas learned counsel for the respondent argues that the Act being one made in the interests of the general public for the control ()f the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain commodities, mens rea is not one of the ingredients of the offence.



4. The law on the subject














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top