TMI Blog1956 (5) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the licence, the firm was bound to maintain a register in English, Hindi and Urdu showing separately the transaction in each kind of oilseed or their products in which it was dealing specifying correctly the opening balance on each day, the quantities received during each day and the quantities sold locally each day and also the quantities sold outside the controlled oilseeds and oil markets. The licensee was further bound to furnish correctly such information as might be demanded from it by the Regional Food Controller or by any other person authorised by him in this behalf. The licensee was asked to submit correct fortnightly statements of the stocks received by it and as the returns submitted by the licensee were incorrect, the condition of the licence was contravened. 4. In Appeal No. 404 of 1952 the allegation of the prosecution is that the firm had received 675 maunds of linseed on 15-4-1946, 294 maunds and 30 seers of linseed on 22-4-1946 and 270 maunds of linseed on 9-5-1946 but their receipts were not shown in the fortnightly statements ending on 15-4-1943, 30-4-194G and 15-5-1946, submitted by the firm to the Regional Food Controller, Banaras. In Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd looked after his business there and the contravention of the condition of the licence was committed within his knowledge. 7. In appeal it was contended by the opposite party that in view of the facts alleged by the prosecution, the opposite party could only be tried under Section 10, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and that, in any case, the liability of the opposite party was not an absolute liability. Mens rea or guilty mind was an essential ingredient of an offence under Sections 7 and 10, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. As the prosecution has failed to prove any guilty intention on the part of the respondent inasmuch as he had no knowledge that the statements submitted were false statements, the opposite party could not be convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. The prosecution had further alleged that in fact the opposite party had knowledge of the receipt of the articles and that the statements submitted were incorrect. The Sessions Judge accepted the contention raised by the defence and acquitted the respondent of the charge under Sections 7 10, Essential Supplies Act. 8. In appeal before us it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce is made penal The law on this point was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Srinivas Mall v. Emperor, 1947 PC 135 (AIR V 34) (A). It was observed by their Lordships as follows on page 139 of the Report: -- The High Court took the view that even if appellant 1 had not been proved to have known of the unlawful acts of appellant 2, he would still be liable, on the ground that 'where there is an absolute prohibition and no question of mens rea arises, the master is criminally liable for the acts of his servant.' 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 any guilty mind. See the judgment of Wright J. in Sherras v. De Rutzen, (1895) 1 QB 918 (921) (B). Offences which are within that class 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 vicariousl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blameworthy condition of mind is an essential ingredient of a crime but it is open to the Legislature to exclude the element of mens rea by express words or by implication from any such offence. The State Counsel strenuously contended that having regard to the language of Section 7 and to the nature and the scope of the enactment, it must be held that in an offence punishable under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, the Legislature has excluded the element of mens rea. Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 provides that- If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and if the order so provides, any Court trying such contravention may direct that any property in respect of which the Court is satisfied that the order has been contravened shall be forfeited.....' This section has been couched in a very wide language. It applies to all persons. The orders contemplated under Section 3 cover a very wide range. It cannot, therefore, be said that Section 7, oh its plain language, excludes the element of mens rea from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any breach of the conditions of the licence amounts to an offence irrespective of an intention on the part of the licensee. As has been laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council and further approved by the Supreme Court in the cases, which we have already referred to, Section 7 makes a breach of an order passed under Section 3 liable to punishment for three years: this offence, therefore, does not come within the exceptional class of legislation, the offences under which necessarily exclude mens rea. Their Lordships of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court no doubt dealt with the provisions of Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules but the language of Rule 81(4) is similar to that of Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. It was conceded by the Government Advocate that for an offence under Section 10, mens rea was a necessary ingredient buy he contended that for an offence under Section 7, it cannot be regarded as a necessary ingredient. We do not see that there is any force in this contention. If the same act is made punishable both under the particular Section 10 and also under Section 7, which is a general section, for such an act, at any rate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout making necessary endorsements and particulars on the reverse of the coupons, infringing thereby Clause 27A of the said Order. The Magistrate convicted the appellant though ultimately the Supreme Court acquitted him of the charge for contravening Clause 22. Clause 22 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, was as follows: No person shall furnish or acquire a supply of motor spirit otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in this order. Clause 5 of the said Order provided- Motor spirit required for any vehicle not covered by Clause 3 or Clause 4 shall be furnished or acquired only against the surrender to a supplier at the time of supply of valid ordinary coupons or of a valid supplementary coupon and only in accordance with any conditions or instructions appearing on or attached to the coupons. Clause 27 provided: No person shall surrender to a supplier and no supplier shall accept special receipts or coupons at a time other than the time at which the supply of motor spirit authorised by the special receipts or coupons or acknowledged by the receipts is furnished. Clause 27A runs as follows': When motor spirit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts there are again instances well-known in these Courts where the master is made responsible, even though he knows nothing of the act done by his servant, and he may be lined or rendered amenable to the penalty enjoined by the law. In those cases the Legislature absolutely forbids the act and makes the principal liable without a mens rea. In the same case, Atkin J, expressed the same view as follows: I think that the authorities cited by my Lord make it plain that while prima facie a principal is not to be made criminally responsible for the acts of his servants, yet the Legislature may prohibit an act or enforce a duty in such words as to make the prohibition or the duty absolute; in which case the principal is liable if the act is in fact done by his servants, To ascertain whether a particular Act of Parliament has that effect or not regard must be had to the object of the statute, the words used, the nature of the duty laid down, the person upon whom it is imposed, the person by whom it would in ordinary circumstances be formed, and the person upon whom the penalty is imposed. If authority for this is necessary it will be found in the judgment of Bowen L. J. in Reg v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the managers of all the oil mills, it was issued in pursuance of the power given to the Regional Food Controller under Clause 3 of the conditions of the licence. It was served on the manager as an agent of the licensee and as such any breach of the conditions of the licence or failure to comply properly with the order will make the master liable and again submission of the statement of the stock will be considered to be the act of the master. As we have already pointed out, in the criminal paw, every individual is only liable for his own acts. Unless there is some absolute duty cast upon the master, he cannot be held responsible for the act of his servant. We have already discussed the point and, in our opinion, there is nothing in the Oilseeds and Oilseeds Products Control Order which makes the duty to furnish statement absolute of the master and for the breach oi which he can bo made liable although the act was done by his servant. We have already indicated that the Government Advocate had conceded that if the offence was punishable under Section 10, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, knowledge was an essential element but as in the present case, according to him, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , will not be enough to hold that the opposite party had knowledge of the fact that the statements which were submitted by Gaya Prasad were false. We see no reason to differ from the finding of the Sessions Judge that the opposite party had no knowledge of the fact that the statements were false. 13. The prosecution, besides the Bank account, relied upon the oral statements of Bishwanath Prasad and Sarju Prasad to prove the fact that the opposite party took active interest in the management of the affairs of the mills. Bishwanath Prasad and Sarju Prasad were not named in the police charge-sheet as witnesses. They were examined for the first time in 1950 and the case began so far back as in 1947. Bishwanath Prasad has, however, accepted that Gaya Prasad was the manager of the mill and was managing the affairs and Sheo Prasad Jaiswal was the proprietor. He was Marketting Inspector in Banaras in 1946 and visited the mills several times in 1947 in connection with his duties and that he found the opposite party and Gaya Prasad present there. In cross-examination, however, he has not been able to give the names of the managers and the proprietors of Bajrang Oil Mills or Shankar Oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
