TMI Blog1964 (7) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a notice dated 29th December, 1962 (a copy of which is marked exhibit P-2 in the case), to the firm stating that the firm has during the year 1961-62 used "C" Form declarations for inter-State purchase of certain goods which are not covered by the class or classes of goods specified in the certificafe of registration and has thereby committed an offence under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Exhibit P-2 notice states: "You have thus used 'C' Form declarations for the inter-State purchase of goods which are not covered by the class or classes of goods specified in the certificate of registration issued to you under the General Sales Tax Act and have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is therefore proposed to impose on you under section 10A of the said Act, a penalty of Rs. 23,170-35 which is equal to 10 per cent. of the cost price of the goods you purchased inter-State by the unauthorised use of the 'C' Form declarations." The petitioner submitted its objection to the proposed penalty by a reply dated 7th January, 1963, a copy of which is marked exhibit P-3. In exhibit P-3 it was stated that the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f its business. 3. The main submission made by counsel on behalf of the petitioner was that even assuming that the goods purchased were not covered by exhibit P-1 certificate, the partners in the firm were under the bona fide belief that they were so covered and therefore they had no mens rea in issuing the "C" Form declarations. The relevant portion of section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as follows: "10. If any person- ............................................................................................... (b) being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration; or ............................................................................................... he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine or with both; and when the offence is a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the offence continues." Section 10A of the Act reads as follows: "If any person purchasing goods is guilty of an offence under clause (b) or clause (c) or clause ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d always bear in mind that, unless a statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, the court should not find a man guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind." Wright, J., in Sherras v. De Rutzen[1895] 1 Q.B. 918, 921. said: "There is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention, or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered." These formulations were cited with approval by Lord Evershed in Lin Chin Aik v. The Queen[1963] A.C. 160. I think, here, the language used in section 10, clause (b), makes it clear that mens rea is an essential ingredient for the commission of an offence. 5.. In Derry v. Peek14 App. Cas. 337, at 357., which decided that deceit cannot be committed by inadvertent negligence, even though gross, Lord Herschell said: "To make a statement careless whether it be true or false, and therefore without any real belief in its truth, appears to me to be an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a reasonable ground for his belief. This is what the learned Chief Justice said: "He must of course have a reasonable ground for his belief. A person who has passed no examination and has received no qualification from a genuine teaching body cannot adopt one of the titles mentioned in the section and be heard to say that he believed he had such skill as would entitle him so to describe himself. We can sum up this part of the case by saying that there must be mens rea and the presence or absence of that state of mind must be tested on ordinary principles and in the light of common sense." This was when the question was not directly before the court. But when it arose pointedly in the later case reported in Wilson v. Inyang[1951] 2 K.B. 799., the learned Chief Justice seems to have explained that he had meant only that the belief must be honest and that reasonableness was evidence of honesty in the belief. Lord Goddard, C.J., said: "a man may honestly believe that which no other man of common sense would believe. If he has acted without any reasonable ground, and has refrained from making any proper inquiry, that is generally very good evidence that he is not acting honestly. Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
