Mens rea is an essential ingredient for the contravention of any clause of any order under the Essential Commodities Act, and the prosecution of an accused in the absence of mens rea is illegal.

P.K.Sarin, J.

1. This criminal revision application has been filed against the order dated 28th June, 1938 passed by Special Judge (E. C. Act), Patna in Special Case No. 8 of 1988 by which the learned Special Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. It appears that a first information report (copy at Annexure-2) was filed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Satva Gas Service, Gardani Bagh, Patna. It was alleged that on 7.4.1988 the business premises of the said firm was raided by the Assistant Rationing Officer along with other personnel. The petitioner was not present at the business premises at that time. It was found that notice board was not found according to the prescribed proforma (Schedule-III form-A) as it did not disclose the name of the Agency or the name of the Proprietor nor the information regarding the stock received and balance. It was further alleged that the price of refill of the gas was also not shown on the notice board. It was alleged that on account of such deficiency the petitioner has contravened the provisions of clauses (3) and (4) of the Bihar Essential Commodities (Price and Display) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Display Order). It was further alleged that the stock register and the issue register relating to the refil were not produced for inspection and thereby the provisions of condition No. 9 of the licence issued under Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order) has been contravened. It was further alleged that the physical verification was done regarding the stock of the refill in the godown and it was found that the stock of filled up cylinders, empty cylinders and defective cylinders, as shown on the notice Board, did not tally with the refills found in the godown. It was further found that the godown keeper, Kanchan Kumar, had told that seventy four cylinders had been sent through vendors to be supplied to the residence of the consumers. Taking into account that statement to be correct it was found that there was still defnciency of seventy cylinders which could not be explained and total four cylinders were found in excess of the stock shown. It was further alleged that at the time of inspection two consumers had complained that the refilled cylinders were to be supplied at the rate of Rs. 60.25 paise if it is delivered to the residence and if it is taken by the consumer from the godown it has to be supplied at two rupees less than the said rate but they had not been given that concession and they have been charged the price at the rate of Rs. 60.25 paise. On account of such fact it was alleged that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Clauses 16 and 16 (II) of the Unification Order.

3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioner and subsequently fixed the date for hearing on charge matter. Feeling aggrieved by the cognizance order this criminal revision application has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no storage limit has been fixed for liquefied petroleum gas (hereinafter referred to as the L.P.G.) under the Unification Order as such the Unification Order was not workable in respect of the L.P.G. and there arises no question of contravention of Clauses 16 and 16 (II) of the Unification Order or any other clause of the said Order. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 17.11.1974 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 367 of 1991 with Cr. Rev. No. 322 of 1991 Satish Agrawal and others v. State of Bihar. In the said case it has been held that in absence of fixation of storage limit under the Unification Order the same was not wo