Back
1967 Supreme(Mad) 396
Madras High Court
KRISHNASWAMI REDDY
Madras Slate Wakf Board - Appellant
Versus
Tajmul Hussain - Respondent
Decided On : 09/26/1967
M.A. Sathar Sayeed, for Appellant; R. Kamesh Amiens Curiae, for Respondent.
Failure to submit accounts and budget estimates under the Wakf Act does not require the prosecution to prove that the failure was wilful in the sense that it was deliberate or intentional. It is sufficient to show that the failure was conscious.
Headnote:
WAKF ACT - FAILURE TO SUBMIT ACCOUNTS - SECTIONS 31, 32, 41(1)(B), (I) - FAILURE TO SUBMIT ACCOUNTS AND BUDGET ESTIMATES - INTERPRETATION - WILFULNESS NOT REQUIRED - CONSCIOUS FAILURE SUFFICIENT - CONVICTION UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, the Mutavalli of a mosque, failed to submit accounts and budget estimates to the Madras State Wakf Board for several years. He was prosecuted under Sections 41(1)(b) and (i) of the Wakf Act, 1954, but was acquitted by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the failure to submit accounts was wilful.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the accused was guilty of offences under Sections 41(1)(b) and (i) of the Wakf Act. The court held that it was not necessary for the prosecution to show that the failure to submit accounts or budget was wilful in the sense that they were deliberate or intentional. It was sufficient to show that the failure was conscious.
Issues: Whether the failure to submit accounts and budget estimates under the Wakf Act must be wilful in order to constitute an offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the word 'wilful' in Section 41(1) of the Wakf Act does not require the prosecution to prove that the failure to submit accounts was deliberate or intentional. It is sufficient to show that the failure was conscious. The court relied on the fact that Section 41(1) provides a defence to a person charged with an offence if they can satisfy the court that there was a reasonable cause for their failure.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the accused under Sections 41(1)(b) and (i) of the Wakf Act. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 under each of the two counts, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.
2. P.W. 1, the legal assistant to the Board, stated in evidence that the accused had not submitted accounts even though by notice dated 17-12-1964 he was asked to submit the accounts from 1956-57 to 1962-63. The accused also did not submit the budget estimates as required under S. 31 of the Act. Ex. P-3 is the notice issued by the complainant to the accused and Ex. P-4 is the postal acknowledgment.
3. The accused, when questioned under S. 342, Criminal P.C., stated that for the years 1956 and 1957 to 1959 he could not keep accounts and hence he did not send accounts. He further stated that in the year 1960 he sent the accounts and the accounts of 1961 were checked by the Inspector. According to him, since 1962, because of the meagre income and the stoppage of allowance, he did not submit accounts. He also added that after 1962, no expenses were incurred. He contended that there has been no wilful default on his part.
4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that the failure of submission of accounts by the accused was wilful.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, under S. 41 of the Act, it is not necessary that the failure to submit the accounts must be wilful. As a matter of fact, the word 'wilful' is not found in the provisions of S. 41(1)(b) and (i) of the Act. It is true that in criminal prosecutions, normally, mens rea is necessary to attribute culpability to the accused. In certain statutory offences, where persons are prosecuted for violation of rules or conditions, what is required in the absense of any mens rea provided under the relevant provisions, is that such violation was conscious and deliberate. The word 'wilful', when used in statutes, connotes different concepts. In certain cases 'wilful' may mean 'wantonly'. In certain other cases, it may mean 'intentionally', or 'deliberately' and in other cases, it may merely mean 'consciously'. I do not think to prove an offence falling under Section 41(1) of the Act; it (offence) must lie proved to have been committed 'wilfully' in the sense that such failure to submit accounts was 'deliberate' or 'intentional'. Even though the word 'wilful' is not used in S. 11 of the Act, it must be proved by the prosecution that such failure of submission of accounts was a 'conscious' failure. Otherwise, no act can be attributed to any person if it had not been done consciously. The relevant provisions in S. 41(1) may be extracted hereunder :
"41 (1). If a mutavalli fails
(a) to apply for the registration of a wakf;
(b) to furnish statement of particulars of accounts or returns as required by this Act;
(c) to (h) . . .
(i) to do any other act which he is lawfully required to do by or under this Act, he shall, unless he satisfies the Court that there was reasonable cause for his failure, be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees."
This provision makes it clear that mere failure to furnish statements of particulars of accounts or returns is made prima facie an offence and a protection is given to the person charged, in the same provision to satisfy the Court that there was a reasonable cause for his failure.
6. Under S. 31 of the said Act, every Mutavalli of a wakf shall submit a budget every year to the Board for approval and under S. 32
