Ignorance of law is generally not an excuse for committing an offence, but it may be a defense if the defendant lacked the necessary mens rea.

( 1 ) A. P. Misra was tried along with two others R. S. Sarma and S. P. Mukherjee under Section 7, Sub-section (1) of the Essential Commodities Act (Act X of 1955) for violation of the provisions of Clause 3 (1) of the Calcutta Wheat (Movement Control) Order, 1956, Accused S. P. Mukherjee who was the goods clerk at Nimtola goods office was in charge of accepting forwarding notes. The petitioner A. P. Misra was said to have produced on 1/10/1956 ninety-eight bags of wheat on behalf of accused R. S. Sarma, a school boy aged about 14 years for booking Ex-Nimtola to Kharakpur on behalf of self. S. P. Mukherjee was charged for abetment of the offence for export of wheat without a permit. The learned Magistrate who tried them acquitted the two co-accused but convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00 in default to rigorous imprisonment for four months. The seized quantity of wheat was ordered to be confiscated. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore. The present Rule is directed against the aforesaid order or conviction and sentence.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that the petitioner on behalf of co-accused H. S. Sarma produced 98 bags of wheat at Nimtola Railway Station for export to Kharagpur. The forwarding note was produced before the co-accused S. P. Mukherjee on 22/9/1956. A wagon was allotted wherein the goods were loaded for despatch. The goods in due course reached Kharagpur on 6/10/1956 when one man approached P. W. 3 M. B. Varma, the goods clerk at Kharagpur Railway Station for taking delivery of the goods. The goods however were not delivered as there was no permit for the movement. The defence of the petitioner was that he was not guilty. He further pleaded that he acted openly and was not aware of the particular Movement Control Order. Objections were also taken in the Courts below as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try the case.

( 3 ) IN this Court Mr. J. M. Banerjee for the petitioner has taken the following points in support of the Rule.

( 4 ) FIRSTLY, he urges that the Courts below had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence except on a report in writing at required under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act. He has pointed out that there is no report in writing on record. There is however, a 'first Information Report' drawn on a letter sent by P. W. 5 Sailesh Ch. Chanda, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch, Howrah, G. R. P. The formal 'first Information Report' that was drawn on it is Ext. 8 in the case. The letter itself is Ext. 7. Mr. Banerjee has taken me through the evidence of P. W. 5 Sailesh Ch. Chanda and the other police officer, P. W. 10 A. N. Biswas also attached to the District Enforcement Branch, Howrah, G. Rule P. Their evidence does not show that they had filed a report in writing as was required under Section 11 of the Act.

( 5 ) MR. Hari Dev Chatterjee on behalf of the State has argued that in the present case the F. I. R. itself should be taken to be a report as contemplated' under Section 11 of the Act. Section 11 of the Act is in the following terms :"no Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. "

( 6 ) IT appears that cognisance of the case was taken on a charge-sheet submitted on 29-12-1956. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the State has cited a decision by a Judge sitting singly of the Patna High Court in the case of Sagarmal Agarwala v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Pat 390 (A ). While considering a case under Rule 131 of the Defence of India Rules, Sinha, J. , held that where after completing his investigation the Sub-Inspector has submitted a regular written charge-sheet giving all the details for the prosecution of the accused, there is a report in writing of a public