TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for breach of the licensing order, requires mens rea and whether the appellant intentionally contravened the order.
Analysis: Mens rea is ordinarily an essential ingredient of a criminal offence and is excluded only by express words or necessary implication. The object of the Act, being control of essential commodities in the public interest, did not necessarily exclude a guilty mind. On the facts found, the appellant had applied for a licence, paid the fee, submitted returns, and continued in the bona fide belief that the licence had been issued or would be issued. The authorities had not communicated rejection of the application, which supported that belief. In these circumstances, the storage of foodgrains was not shown to be an intentional contravention of the order.
Conclusion: Mens rea was required, and the appellant was not guilty of an intentional contravention. The conviction could not stand.
Ratio Decidendi: A penal provision under the Essential Commodities Act is construed to require mens rea unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes it, and liability does not arise where the act is done under a bona fide belief inconsistent with intentional contravention.
TaxTMI 
