Mens rea required for criminal liability under rationing orders; innocent owner cannot be vicariously convicted without clear statutory exclusion.

Mens rea remained essential to sustain the conviction for contravention of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, because the statute did not clearly or by necessary implication exclude a guilty mind. The court held that the prohibition on supply against valid coupons did not, by itself, create vicarious criminal liability for an innocent owner where the appellant was neither present nor aware of the sale. The earlier broad view of automatic liability for a master was rejected as too wide. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and discharged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained where the appellant was neither present at nor aware of the prohibited sale of motor spirit, and whether the statutory scheme created vicarious criminal liability in the absence of mens rea.

Analysis: The prohibitory clauses in the Motor Spirit Rationing Order required supply only against valid coupons, and Section 7 of Act XXIV of 1946 punished contravention of orders made under Section 3, with the rationing order deemed to be made under that section by Section 17. The Court held that, notwithstanding the width of the prohibition, criminal liability does not arise in every case of absolute prohibition without proof of a guilty mind. The earlier view that a master is automatically liable for the act of a servant in such circumstances was treated as too broad in light of the Privy Council's statement that mens rea remains essential unless excluded by clear words or necessary implication. The offence here was not a minor quasi-criminal regulatory default of the kind in which mens rea is ordinarily displaced, and the statute did not expressly or by necessary implication create vicarious liability for an innocent owner.

Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable because the appellant could not be held criminally liable without mens rea, and no vicarious liability was created by the statute.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant was acquitted and discharged, with the conviction and sentence set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Mens rea is presumed to be an essential ingredient of a criminal offence unless the statute clearly or by necessary implication excludes it, and vicarious criminal liability cannot be imposed on an innocent person in the absence of such exclusion.

---