The presumption of mens rea under Section 10C of the Essential Commodities Act can be rebutted by the accused by showing that he had no culpable mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence.

M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) R. Muthukrishnan, the first accused has filed the appeals in C. A. Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of 1992 against the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act cases, Pudukottai in S. T. C. Nos. 20 to 25 of 1990 convicting the appellant for the offence under S. 7 (1) (a) (ii) and 12 aa (2) (f) of Essential Commodities Act for violation of the Clause 19 (1) (a) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo R. I. for three months.

( 2 ) R. Rajamanickam, the second accused has filed the appeals in C. A. Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of 1992 challenging the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for essential Commodities Act cases, Pudukottai, in S. T. C. Nos. 20 to 25 of 1990 convicting the appellant for the offence under Ss. 7 (1) (a) (ii) and 12aa (2) (g) of E. C. Act for violation of Clause 19 (1) (a) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo R. I. for one month.

( 3 ) ALL these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, since the parties as well as the issue in these cases are one and the same.

( 4 ) THE relevant facts which are required for the disposal of the appeals are as follows :-THE complainant is an Agricultural Officer, office of the Deputy Director for Agriculture, Musiri/lalgudi. He filed the private complaints before the trial Court against the appellants and another stating that the fertilizer that was found possession in the premises of A3 was found to be substandard and that Muthukrishnan (A1), the manufacturer of the said fertilizer and Rajamanickam (A2), the distributor and A3, who kept the said substandard fertilizer in his premises for sale were liable to be punished for the offence under clause 19 (1) (a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 read with S. 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Since on various dates, six samples were taken from A3s premises and they were analysed and found to be substandard, six separate complaints were filed before the trial Court, which in turn took the case on file in S. T. C. Nos. 20 to 25 of 1990.

( 5 ) AFTER the trial is over, the learned Special Judge for E. C. Act cases, Pudukottai acquitted A3, as the charge was not proved against him, however, convicted A1 and A2 as referred to above. These judgments imposing conviction upon A1 and A2 are being challenged in these appeals before this Court.

( 6 ) MR. Balu, the counsel appearing for the first accused Muthukrishnan, would contend that the procedures for taking samples have not been correctly followed and that therefore, the first accused is liable to be acquitted.

( 7 ) AS regards this point, the learned Government Advocate would point out by reading out the relevant portions of the evidence and the impugned judgments that the procedures have been properly followed and acceptable materials have been produced to show that the first accused was the person, who manufactured the fertilizer which was found to be substandard through the Analyst report placed before the Court.

( 8 ) AS regards A1, apart from the prosecution witnesses and other documents produced by the prosecution to show that the fertilizer which was distributed by the first accused to the third accused was adulterated, the reply by the first accused to the notice sent by P. W. 1 to him would itself show that the first accused accepted the prosecution case by stating that due to mistake some other material got mixed up with the said fertilizer and the same was sent to the third accused. Therefore, the submission made by the counsel for the first accused that proper procedures have not been followed, while taking samples, does not have any substance. Hence, while rejectin