Strict liability under trust law: mens rea not required for contravention, and the prosecution failed on proof of withdrawals.

Section 35(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was treated as a public-welfare regulatory provision requiring trustees to keep trust money in prescribed investments or deposits, and the provision was characterised as creating strict or absolute liability; mens rea was not an essential ingredient. On the evidence, no material showed that accused 2 to 10 were trustees at the relevant time or that they knew of or ated in the withdrawals, so the case against them failed. As to accused 1, the prosecution did not prove that the money came from trust funds, the alleged letter was not proved according to law, and the statement under section 342 CrPC, read as a whole, did not establish guilt.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the evidence established any offence against accused 2 to 10 and accused 1 in relation to the withdrawals from trust funds; (ii) whether mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under section 35(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

Issue (i): whether the evidence established any offence against accused 2 to 10 and accused 1 in relation to the withdrawals from trust funds.

Analysis: The record disclosed no material showing that accused 2 to 10 were trustees at the relevant time, and no evidence that they knew of or participated in the withdrawals. As to accused 1, the prosecution failed to prove that the monies came from trust funds, and the alleged letter relied upon by the prosecution was not proved in accordance with law. The statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 could not be split up selectively, and when read as a whole it did not establish guilt.

Conclusion: The case against accused 2 to 10 failed, and the prosecution also failed to prove the guilt of accused 1.

Issue (ii): whether mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under section 35(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

Analysis: Section 35(1) was treated as a regulatory provision enacted in public interest to safeguard trust money. The provision imposed a duty on trustees to keep trust money in prescribed investments or deposits and attached only a fine for contravention. In that setting, and having regard to the object and language of the section, the ordinary presumption of mens rea was held to be displaced, and the offence was characterised as one of strict or absolute liability.

Conclusion: Mens rea was held not to be an essential ingredient of the offence under section 35(1).

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected because the prosecution failed on the evidence and, in any event, the statutory contravention under section 35(1) was held to be an absolute liability offence not requiring proof of mens rea.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a regulatory, public-welfare offence and the language and scheme show that contravention is intended to attract absolute liability, the ordinary presumption of mens rea stands displaced.

---