Controlled price excess payments count as sale price, with mens rea required unless clearly excluded by law.

A written report by a public servant was sufficient to support cognizance where it fairly described the alleged contraventions, even without a detailed charge-sheet or full witness list. The controlled price orders were proved by official documents and by evidence of circulation to affected dealers, with regularity of official acts presumed. Extra sums demanded as a condition of delivery were treated as part of the sale price, so the controlled price orders were breached. Evidence of similar transactions and accomplice testimony was admissible to prove knowledge and intentional participation, and criminal liability was not imposed without mens rea unless clearly excluded by the governing text.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the report made by the Price Control Officer satisfied the condition precedent for cognizance under Rule 130(1) of the Defence of India Rules; (ii) whether the existence and publication of the price control orders were proved so as to sustain the convictions under Rule 119(1); (iii) whether the additional sums demanded and taken from retail dealers formed part of the sale price and established contravention of the controlled price orders; and (iv) whether the evidence of other transactions, accomplice testimony, and the pleaded absence of mens rea or vicarious liability barred conviction.

Issue (i): whether the report made by the Price Control Officer satisfied the condition precedent for cognizance under Rule 130(1) of the Defence of India Rules.

Analysis: Rule 130(1) required a written report by a public servant before cognizance could be taken of an alleged contravention. The report need not contain a detailed charge-sheet or the names of every witness. A summary report describing the contraventions, based on information checked by examination of witnesses, was sufficient in the circumstances, and cognizance could validly be taken of all the offences charged.

Conclusion: The report was sufficient and the cognizance taken by the Court was valid.

Issue (ii): whether the existence and publication of the price control orders were proved so as to sustain the convictions under Rule 119(1).

Analysis: The documents signed by the District Magistrate showed that he intended to make and did make orders fixing controlled prices. The Rules did not require any particular form. As to publication, the Court relied on the presumption that official acts are regularly performed and on the evidence that printed price lists were circulated among affected dealers. The circumstances supported the conclusion that due notice had been given to the class of persons concerned.

Conclusion: The orders and their due publication were sufficiently proved.

Issue (iii): whether the additional sums demanded and taken from retail dealers formed part of the sale price and established contravention of the controlled price orders.

Analysis: The extra amounts were exacted as a condition for delivery of the salt. Their separate collection, or the fact that the 2nd appellant may have retained part of the excess for himself, did not alter their character as part of the price paid to obtain the goods. Knowledge and connivance by the 1st appellant made him responsible for the unlawful exaction.

Conclusion: The excess payments were part of the purchase price, and the contravention was proved.

Issue (iv): whether the evidence of other transactions, accomplice testimony, and the pleaded absence of mens rea or vicarious liability barred conviction.

Analysis: Evidence of other similar transactions was relevant to show knowledge, intention to aid, and intentional omission to stop the unlawful practice. Accomplice evidence was legally admissible and not inadmissible merely because uncorroborated. The Court rejected the view that liability could be imposed without mens rea merely because the acts were committed by a servant. In the absence of a clear exclusion of guilty mind, criminal liability required mens rea.

Conclusion: The additional evidence was admissible, and the argument based on absence of mens rea or vicarious liability failed.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were upheld because the cognizance report was valid, the controlled orders and their publication were proved, the excess exactions formed part of the sale price, and the remaining evidentiary and mens rea objections had no merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a controlled price order makes delivery conditional on payment of an extra sum, that excess is part of the price for contravention purposes; and unless excluded by clear language, criminal offences are not committed without mens rea.

---