STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SHEIKH SALAMAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Government appeal against the order of the learned Magistrate, Mr. J. N. Singh, acquitting the respondent, Sheikh Salamat. The respondent was charged 'under Section 7/8, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1940, for carrying one maund twenty seers of rice on 23-7-1952 from Ranchi district to Palainau district, in contravention of Notification No. Proc. 54/52--P. C. 14121 dated 18-6-1952, having been issued under Clause 11, Bihar Foodgrain Control Order, 1950.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that, on 23-7-1952, the respondent, Sheikh Salamat, was carrying one maund twenty seers of rice, which act was in contravention of the said notification. THE respondent admitted, in his statement under Section 342, Criminal P. C., that he was carrying the rice outside the district of Ranchi, but that he did so as he did not know, that the law prohibited it. THE learned Magistrate has considered the respondent's case, and it appears that certain rulings were placed before him and, upon a consideration of those rulings, he was satisfied that the charge against the respondent had not been established, and thus acquitted him. THE first point raised in the court below in favour of the respondent was that where there is no "mens rea' there could be no criminal offence unless the statute expressly provides that want of 'mens rea' would be no excuse. Before the learned Magistrate, the view of Orissa High Court in -- 'Narsingho Chaudhury v. State', AIR 1952 Orissa 214 (A) was placed. THE ruling of the Orissa High Court was concerning a case under the Orissa Drugs (Control) Act, 1950. His Lordship, Panigrahi, J. observed as follows; "As has been held by the Privy Council in --'Srinivas Mall v. Emperor', AIR 1947 PC 135 (B), unless a statute expressly rules out 'mens rea' as a necessary ingredient of the offence it must be held that a person can be deemed guilty only it it can be shown that he had the necessary criminal intention." I have the Privy Council ruling also before me, and there it was observed as follows: It is in my opinion of the utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the subject that the 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."