RAVULA HARIPRASED RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, which has been preferred after obtaining special leave to appeal from the P. C., is confined to the single question as to whether mens rea is necessary to constitute an offence under S. 81, Defence of India Rules.

(2.) The facts of the case are briefly these. The applt. is the licensee of two petrol filling stations Nos. 552 and 276 as Guntur but is a residents of, Chirala, 40 miles away. He is a Presidency First Class Bench Mag. at Chirala and manages what has been described as a vast business at several places. Ch. Venkatarayudu and Dadda Pichayya, his employees, were respectively in charge of the aforesaid filling stations. In 1946, the applt and his two employees were tried before the Sub-Divisional Mag. of Guntur in respect of offences under the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, and were convicted in each of the cases on 18-7-1946. In the first case, the charges against the applt. and the employee in charge of the pump in question therein were that they on 27-6-1945, at Guntur, supplied petrol to 3 cars without taking coupons, in contravention of cl. 22 read with cl. 5 of the said Order promulgated under R. 81(2), Defence of India Rules and that they, on the same day and at the same place, accepted coupons relating to two other ears in advance without supplying petrol, in contravention of cl. 2 of the Order. The charges in the second case were that the applt. and the employee in the second pump similarly supplied during the period of 14 hours from 6 A.M, of 27-6-1945 petrol to 4 motor vehicles without taking coupons, in contravention of cl. 22 read with Cl. 5, accepted coupons of 3 other vehicles in advance without issuing petrol, in contravention of Cl.27, and supplied petrol to 2 other vehicles against coupons but without making necessary endorsements and particulars on the reverse of the coupons, infringing thereby cl. 2A of the said Order. The Sub-Divisional Mag., Guntur. found the applt and the employee concerned in each case guilty of the charges brought against them and sentenced the applt. (with whose case alone we are now concerned) to a fine of Rs. 30 on the first count and Rs. 20 on the second in the first case with simple imprisonment for 1 week in default, and to a fine of Rs. 20 an each of the three counts in the second case with 1 week's imprisonment in default. The plea of the applt. before the Mag. was that he was the presiding 1st Class Bench Mag, at Chirala, that he was carrying on business in petrol at various centres through servants and he had issued instructions to them not to deviate from the rules under any circumstances and that he could not be made liable for transgression of the rules committed by his employees. The Mag. however overruled the plea and convicted the applt, as stated above. The applt, thereafter preferred an appeal to the Ses. J, at Guntur, who, while setting aside the conviction of the applt. on the second count in each case, confirmed the conviction and sentence in respect of the other charges, on 9-9-1946. This was confirmed in revn. by the H, C at Madras on 19-8 1947. Thereupon the applt. apld. to the P. C. for special leave which was granted on 9-7-1948 limited to the single question whether mens rea was necessary to constitute an offence under R. 81, Defence of India Rules.

(3.) The question to be decided in this appeal arises upon the plea taken by the applt. which has been already refd. to, and the assumption on which the Cts. below have proceeded in dealing with the case. The plea of the applt, that he was not present at Guntur when the alleged offences were committed has not been negatived by the lower Cts., but they have held that he was neverthelees liable, as the question of mens rea was not relevant to the offences with which the applt. was charged. This view is set out very clearly in the following passage which may be quoted from the judgment of the tria1 Mag.