Mens rea is not required for a conviction under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act as it was expressly excluded by an amendment to the Act in 1967.

Every decision of a court is meant to be a voyage in the quest for truth. The main apparatus to chart the path is the assistance rendered by the Bar, or to put it differently, counsel act like light houses and save the ship from wrecking. For want of proper guidance, a court, like Columbus, may however land at a wrong place thinking it to be the destination of its journey.

2. I was confronted with an important question in this case: whether mens rea was needed to convict the petitioner under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, here­inafter "the Act" When I heard the matter on 8.12.81, Shri Barua referred to Nathulal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, which had dealt with the question of mens rea for an offence under the Act. The court stated that:

"having regard to the scope of the Act it would be legitimate to hold that a person commits an offence under section 7 of the Act if he intentionally contravenes any order made under section 3 of the Act. So construed the object of the Act will be best served and innocent persons will also be protected from harassment''. (Emphasis supplied)

This view was taken after referring to the well established principle that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. It was, however, recognised that a statute may exclude the element of mens rea but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision which creates an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. It was then observed:

"The mere fact that the object of the statute is to pro­mote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is not by itself decisive of the question whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence......................"

The Court proceeded to say that the nature of the mens rea, that could be implied in a statute creating an offence depends on the object of the Act and the provisions thereof. Having regard to the object of the Act which is to control in general public interest, the production, supply and distribut­ion of, and trade in certain commodities, it was felt by the Supreme Court that it cannot be said that the object would be defeated if mens rea is read as an ingredient of the offence.

3. Thus, on the language of section 7(i) of the Act as it had then stood, this was the final pronouncement binding on all concerned, under Article 141 of the Constitution. As despite the profoundest respect which a Supreme Court decision com­mands, I did not feel fully assured if this was the only or latest thinking of the highest court of the land on this subject, I requested the learned Public Prosecutor on 8.12.81 to find out if any other view had been taken by the Court in any other or later decisions; so also, to acquaint me if there be any decision of this Court on this aspect qua the Control Order with which we are seized. The succeeding day saw no further enlightenment from across the table. I, therefore ven­tured my traval unaided, and I found that section 7(1) of the Act had been amended by the Essential Commodities (Second Amendment) Act, 1967 (Act 36 of 1967) which had inserted for the words and figure "If any person contravenes any order made under section 3", the words and figure "If any person contravenes, whether knowingly, intentionally or otherwise, any order made under section 3". To know the intention behind the amendment, I looked into the Statement of Object and Reasons (published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary dt. 14.11.67, Part II, Sec. 2 p. 1007) and this is what had been stated:

"Persons committing offence under the Act sometime escape punishment for contravention of orders made there­under on the plea that the offences were not committed by them deliberately. It was felt necessary to amend the Act so as to make contravention of an order made there