1956 (5) TMI 33 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of the conditions of the license under the U.P. Oilseeds and Oilseeds Products Control Order, 1945.
2. Mens rea as an essential ingredient of an offence under Sections 7 and 10 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946.
3. Vicarious liability of the proprietor for the acts of the manager.
4. Interpretation of Section 7 and Section 10 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946.
5. Admissibility and reliability of evidence presented by the prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Contravention of the Conditions of the License:
The respondent, Sheo Prasad Jaiswal, was alleged to have contravened the conditions of the B Class license granted to Hindustan Oil Mills, Banaras, under the U.P. Oilseeds and Oilseeds Products Control Order, 1945. The prosecution claimed that the firm failed to maintain accurate records and submit correct fortnightly statements of stock received, thereby violating condition 3 of the license. The Magistrate found the respondent guilty and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each case, with a default sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment. However, the Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent, leading to the State's appeal.

2. Mens Rea as an Essential Ingredient:
The defense argued that mens rea, or guilty intention, is a necessary ingredient for an offence under Sections 7 and 10 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The Sessions Judge accepted this contention, holding that the prosecution failed to prove any guilty intention on the part of the respondent. The State, on appeal, contended that mens rea is not necessary for an offence under Section 7, arguing that there is absolute liability on the licensee to comply with the license terms.

3. Vicarious Liability of the Proprietor:
The respondent claimed he was merely a sleeping partner and that Gaya Prasad, the manager, was responsible for the firm's operations. The prosecution's argument was that the respondent, as the sole proprietor, should be deemed to have knowledge of the false statements submitted by the firm. The court examined whether the proprietor could be held vicariously liable for the acts of the manager, especially in the absence of direct involvement or knowledge.

4. Interpretation of Section 7 and Section 10:
The court discussed the general principle of criminal law that guilty intention is a necessary ingredient of a crime unless explicitly excluded by statute. Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, does not explicitly exclude mens rea. The court referred to precedents, including the Privy Council and Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that mens rea is typically required unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. The court found no express language in Section 7 excluding mens rea and noted that Section 10 explicitly includes the requirement of guilty knowledge for certain offences.

5. Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence:
The prosecution relied on the testimony of witnesses Bishwanath Prasad and Sarju Prasad to prove the respondent's involvement in the firm's operations. However, the court found their testimonies unreliable. Bishwanath Prasad could not recall specific details, and Sarju Prasad, a former employee with a potential bias, admitted that all official documents were signed by the manager. The Sessions Judge's finding that the respondent had no knowledge of the false statements was upheld.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that mens rea is an essential ingredient for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The prosecution failed to prove that the respondent had knowledge of the false statements submitted by the firm. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent was upheld.