9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (3) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of offences under the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, and were convicted in each of the cases on the 18th July, 1946. In the first case, the charges against the appellant and the employee in charge of the pump in question therein were that they on the 27th June, 1945, at Guntur, supplied petrol to a cars without taking coupons, in contravention of clause 22 read with clause 5 of the said Order promulgated under rule 81 (2) of the Defence of India Rules and that they, on the same day and at the same place, accepted coupons relating to two other cars in advance without supplying petrol, in contravention of clause 27 of the Order. The charges in the second case were that the appellant and the employee in the second pump similarly supplied during the period of 24 hours from 6 a.m. of the 28th June, 1945, petrol to 4 motor vehicles without taking coupons, in contravention of clause 22 read with clause 5, accepted coupons of three other vehicles in advance without issuing petrol, in contravention of clause 27, and supplied petrol to two other vehicles against coupons but without making necessary endorsements and particulars on the reverse of the coupons infringing thereby clause 27A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r or his servant, both are guilty whether they had the knowledge of the breach or not. The question of mens rea will, of course, affect the measure of punishment but it cannot affect the conviction (vide 1943, M.L.J. 38) . Before deciding the question as to how far mens rea is material to conviction for the offences with which the appellant is charged, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Defence of India Rules and the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941. Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules empowers the Central or the Provincial Government to provide by order, in certain circumstances, for regulating amongst other matters, distribution, disposal, use or consumption of articles or things and for requiring articles or things kept for sale to be sold either generally or to specified persons or classes of persons or in specified circumstances. The Central Government in pursuance of the authority thus conferred made the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, for securing the defence of British India, the efficient prosecution of the war and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. Clause 2(d) of the Order defines dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il were convicted under the Defence of India Rules relating to the control of prices and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The 1st appellant was acting as Salt Agent for part of the district of Darbhanga. He had been appointed to this office by the District Magistrate, and it was his duty to sell to licensed retail dealers the supplies of salt which were allocated by the Central Government to his part of Dharbanga district. The second appellant was employed by the first appellant and had been entrusted with the duty of allotting the appropriate quantity of salt to each retail dealer, and noting on the buyer s licence the quantity which he had bought and received. By rule 81 (2) of the Defence of India Rules, the Provincial Governments were empowered to make orders to provide for controlling the prices at which articles or things of any description whatsoever might be sold. The Defence of India Act, 1939, under which the rules were framed, empowered the Provincial Governments to delegate the exercise of their powers to certain officers, and the power to provide by order for controlling the prices at which various articles (among them salt) might be sold, had been delegated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end v. Wood((1946) 110 J.P. 317, 318) In our opinion, the view of the law as propounded by the Privy Council is the correct view, and, applying it to the present case, it is difficult to hold the appellant guilty of the offence under clause 22 read with clause 5 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941. The language of clause 22 does not lend support to the contention that even an innocent master will be criminally liable for an act of his servant. This clause has already been quoted, but, to make the point clear, it may be stated that it provides that no person shall furnish ...... motor spirit otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in the Order. The clause is not aimed specifically against a supplier, but is general in its language, and will hit the individual person, whether he be the supplier or not, who contravenes the provision. The language of the clause also suggests that only the person who furnishes motor spirit contrary to the provisions of the Order will be affected by the contravention. In the course of the arguments, reference was made on behalf of the appellant to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Isak Solomon Macmull v. Emperor(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in charge of the petrol pump, but that fact by itself will not exonerate the supplier from liability. In Mousell Brothers v. London and North-Western Railway( ), Viscount Reading C.J., dealing with a case under the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, observed as follows :-- Prima facie, then, a master is not to be made criminally responsible for the acts of his servant to which the master is not a party. But it may be the intention of the Legislature, in order to guard against the happening of the forbidden thing, to impose a liability upon a principal even though he does not know of, and is not party to, the forbidden act done by his servant. Many statutes are passed with this object. Acts done by the servant of the licensed holder of licensed premises render the licensed holder in some instances liable, even though the act was done by his servant without the knowledge of the master. Under the Food and Drugs Acts there are again instances well known in these Courts where the master is made responsible, even though he knows nothing of the act done by his servant, and he may be fined or rendered amenable to the penalty enjoined by the law. In those [1) [1917] 2 K.B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
