1965 (3) TMI 79 - SC - Indian Laws

Mens rea requirement clarified for Essential Commodities Act violations

NATHULAL Versus STATE OF M.P.

The Supreme Court held that mens rea is a necessary element for offenses under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The appellant, a foodgrains ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether mens rea is a necessary ingredient of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. Whether the appellant intentionally contravened the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Mens Rea as a Necessary IngredientThe appellant, a foodgrains dealer, was prosecuted for storing wheat without a license, allegedly violating Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appellant argued that he did not intentionally contravene the Act, believing a license would be issued to him after applying. The Additional District Magistrate acquitted him, finding no guilty mind. However, the High Court convicted him, asserting that mens rea was not necessary for offences under the Act.The Supreme Court analyzed whether mens rea is an essential element of the offence under Section 7. It reiterated that mens rea is generally an integral part of a criminal offence unless explicitly excluded by statute. The Court emphasized that statutes promoting public welfare or eradicating social evils do not automatically exclude mens rea. The Court concluded that the Essential Commodities Act does not exclude mens rea, and thus, a person can only be convicted if they intentionally contravene the Act.Issue 2: Intentional Contravention of ProvisionsThe Court examined whether the appellant intentionally violated the provisions of the Act. The appellant had applied for a license, deposited the requisite fee, and submitted returns to the licensing authority. He believed the license would be issued, based on assurances from an Inspector. The appellant stored the grains under this bona fide belief, without any communication of license rejection from the authority.The Supreme Court found that the appellant acted under a genuine belief that he was complying with the law. The appellant's actions, including continuous submission of returns and efforts to obtain the license, supported his claim of good faith. The Court held that the appellant did not intentionally contravene the Act or the Order, as his belief was reasonable and not refuted by the licensing authority's actions or inactions.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conviction, acquitting the appellant of the charges. The Court emphasized that mens rea is a necessary ingredient for offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The appellant's bona fide belief and actions demonstrated a lack of intentional contravention. The bail bond was discharged, and any paid fine was ordered to be returned.