SAWAL RAM PODDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7, Essential Supplies Act, for violating Clause (3) of the Bihar Foodgrains Control Order 1948.

(2.) The facts proved are that the firm Satyanarain & Co. at Chaibassa purchased 62 maunds and odd seers of wheat from Messrs. Bhikharam Birdhichand of Sakchi according to the receipt, exhibit 2 dated 29-7-1950. The Supply Inspector visited the shop of the firm on 18-8-1950 and found 35 maunds of wheat in stock. The firm had a license for dealing in foodgrain which had expired on 31-10-1949 (see exhibit 1). On 26-9-1950 the Supply Inspector filed a complaint for prosecution of the petitioner.

(3.) The main argument addressed by Mr. Baldeva Sahay is that the petitioner was merely a servant of the firm Satyanarain & Co. and as the purchase and storage of the wheat was made on behalf of the firm the petitioner cannot be convicted of any criminal offence. It is admitted in this case that the petitioner is not proprietor of the firm and that he works only as a servant of the firm. There is also evidence that the manager of the firm died on 14/10/1949 about a fortnight before the expiry of the license. It is also conceded that the stock register and the accounts of the firm were correctly maintained, that the sale-tax on the purchase of the foodgrain has been duly paid and corresponding entries have been made in the register. Upon these facts, Mr. Baldeva Sahay founded his argument that there was no 'mens rea' on the part of the petitioner and that the conviction ought not to be sustained. In my opinion this argument is correct. In 'Srinivas Mall v. Emperor', AIR 1947 PC 135 (A) it was held by the Judicial Committee that no conviction for an offence under the Defence of India Rules could be sustained unless 'mens rea' is established. Unless the statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out 'mens rea' as a constituent part or a crime, an accused should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind. It is impossible to construe in the present case that Section 7 of the Essential Supplies Act or Clause (3) of the Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1948 creates an absolute liability and that the servant could be liable although he had no guilty knowledge at all. Reference should also be made to 'Harding v. Price', (1948) 1 All ER 283 (B), in which it was held by the Court of Criminal Appeal that the absence of the word knowingly in a statute merely shifted the burden of proof and that the accused may still plead absence of 'mens rea' on his part. In the present case, the facts either admitted or proved suggest that there was no 'mens rea' on the part of the petitioner and that the purchase and storage of the wheat in question was made without any criminal intention on his part.