RAMBHAROSE AWASTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order governs the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 458 of 1960 and Criminal Revision No. 459 of 1960 in which the applicants have been convicted under section 5, read with sections 4 and 4 -A of the C.P. and Berar Entertainments Duty Act, 1936 (No. XXX of 1936) -hereinafter referred to as the Act -and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each in the first case and Rs. 50 in the second case. The facts of the case leading to Criminal Revision No. 458 of 1960 are that the applicants 1 to 3 and 5 are the proprietors of Shanker Talkies in Rewa and the applicant No. 4 Gulam Mohammad Khan is the manager of the said talkies. On 10 -3 -1958, Excise Sub -Inspector Gule Sattar (P.W. 2) made a surprise check and found that nine persons were admitted on a complimentary pass issued by the manager and two children were admitted to the students' class on a chit issued by Gopaldas. No entertainment duty was paid for the entry of these persons as required by section 4 of the Act and therefore all the applicants (proprietors and manager) were charged for having contravened the said provisions and were found guilty under section 5. A petition for revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Rewa, who rejected it. The applicants, therefore, have come up to the High Court in revision. The second case arises under similar circumstances. The date of offence in that case is 6 -5 -1958. The first four applicants are the proprietors of the same Shanker Talkies. Applicant No. 6 Surajpal Singh was the manager on the relevant date. On checking, 25 persons were found without tickets in the students concession class and 5 persons in the second class. For all these persons no entertainment duty had been paid. The proprietors and the manager were prosecuted and convicted under section 6 of the Act by the Magistrate and a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Rewa, failed.

(2.) SEVERAL grounds have been stated in the petition for revision; but Shri R.K. Tankha for the applicants raised only one law point in support of the petition before me. His contention is that the proprietors are not liable for an offence under section 5, read with section 4 -A, of the Act, unless they have knowledge of the admission of the persons without tickets or have connived at such admission being made. This contention was raised before the Sessions Judge also; but the learned Sessions Judge rejected it observing that the liability of the proprietor under section 4 -A of the Act is absolute and he is therefore liable to be convicted irrespective of the fact whether he knows about the admission of persons without payment of entertainment duty or whether he is responsible for such admission. Section 4 -A of the Act runs as follows: No proprietor shall admit any person to an entertainment without payment for admission thereto or at concession rates unless the entertainments duty payable in respect thereof on the full value of the ticket for the class to which such person is admitted has been paid. Section 5 is as follows:

(3.) THIS observation is followed by several examples; for instance, a passenger may be compelled to show his ticket even though he has no intent to defraud; byelaws imposing regulations in the interest of the health or convenience of the public are generally so conceived and the mere breach of them is sufficient to constitute an offence; the sale of an article of food or a drug not of the nature, substance and quality of the article demanded, is to the prejudice of the purchaser and is an offence, though the seller is unaware of the fact. Thus, it is possible to provide in a statute for the criminal liability of persons without any guilty mind when this is considered necessary in the interest of the general public; but the language of the statute must be very clear to indicate this. The question of the liability of a master for the acts of his servant without knowledge of the acts was considered in the context of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, by the Supreme Court in Hariprasada Rao v. The State AIR 1951 SC 204. The following passage from the decision in Sriniwas Mall v. King -Emperor AIR 1947 PC 135 was quoted as laying down the correct law: With due respect to the High Court their Lordships think it necessary to express their dissent from this view. They see no ground for saying that offences against those of the Defence of India Rules here in question are within the limited and exceptional class of offences which can be held to be committed without a guilty mind. See the Judgment of Wright J. in Sherras v. De Ratzun (1895) 1 QB 918 at p. 921=64 LJMC 218. Offences which are within that clause are usually of a comparatively minor character, and it would be a surprising result of this delegated legislation if a person who was morally innocent of blame could be held vicariously liable for a servant's crime and so punishable 'with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years'. Their Lordships agree with the view which was recently expressed by the Lord Chief Justice of England, when he said: 'It is in my opinion of the utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the subject that a Court should always bear in mind that, unless the statute, either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind. [Brend v. Wood (1946) 110 JP 317 at p. 318=175 LT 306]'.