TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (9) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able in the warehouse. Out of these 71 bags, only 61 bags weighing 91 mds. 27srs. tallied with the description and weight given in the warehouse register, while the contents of the remaining 10 bags were removed from the warehouse and 15 mds. 24 srs. of local patti choora was substituted in their place. (3) Under Entry No. I/19 dated the 4th March, 1962 the recorded balance was 23 bundles and one bag weighing 45 mds., 17 srs. but on weighment the individual packages showed wide variations from their recorded weights, and out of them three bundles and the bags were found filled with local patti choora instead of Kampila Ganj and whole leaf &. weighed 4 mds. 26 srs. as against their recorded weight of 7 mds. 27 srs. 3.The case for the prosecution was that the aforesaid goods had been removed from the warehouse otherwise than as provided in the Central Excise Rules and without payment of the duty leviable on them and the respondent was therefore guilty for the contravention of the provisions of section 9 (a) and 9(b) of the Central Excise Act—hereinafter called the Act—and Rule 151(c) of the Central Excise Rules—hereinafter called the Rules. 4The respondent pleaded not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or requires proof of mens rea on his part. The law relating to mens rea has been the subject matter of numerous decisions, but, as the last word on it has been said by the Supreme Court in Nathoo Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (A), it is necessary to refer to them. In Nathoo Lal, the Supreme Court observed thus :- "The law on the subject is fairly well settled. It has come under judicial scrutiny of this Court on many occasions. It does not call for a detailed discussion. It is enough to restate the principles. Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. Doubtless a statute may exclude the element of mens rea, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statue expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. The mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is by itself not decisive of the question whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on falling under any of these categories, the liability for it is laid at the door of "the owner of the goods warehoused." The learned Government Advocate contended that as the acts in question resulting in the shortage referred to above, were admittedly committed by a servant of the respondent he was vicariously liable for them. In my opinion this contention is not borne out by the syntax of the Rule, and the use of the words 'with his connivance' therein. So far as the former is concerned it is to be noted that the Rule clearly states that if 'the owner of the goods warehoused' by himself or by any person in his employ—leaving aside the question of "with his connivance" for the amount—commits any of the offences enumerated in that Rule he would be held responsible for the same. In my opinion the use of the words "by himself or any person in his employ" clearly show, that if the impugned act is not performed by "the owner of the goods warehoused" himself, but is committed by person in his employ then the former can be made liable for it, only if the prosecution is able to prove, that it was done either at his asking or to his knowledge or with his connivance. I am fortified in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in his employ or with his conviction' to narrow down the absolute and unconditional liability of the manufacturer etc., for the breach of any of the conditions, mentioned therein. That section was, therefore, of sufficiently wide import to make the manufacturer etc. vicariously liable for the acts of their servants even if those acts were done without their knowledge or connivance. Consequently this decision is of no help to us in interpreting Rule 151. The next case which was cited at the Bar was that of Govind Prasad Sharma v. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh (C). In this case sub-section (7) of Section 228 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code of 1954 came up for consideration. The said Rule reads thus : "Any person who without lawful authority extracts or removes mineral from any mine or, quarry, the right of which vests in, and has not been assigned by, the Government, shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, be liable on the order in writing of the Deputy Commissioner, to pay penalty not exceeding a sum calculated at double the market value of the minerals so extracted or removed...................." 11. In this case a contractor ....