- (1.) This is an appeal filed by the sole accused against his conviction under Sec. 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 read with Clause 10 of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) order, 1984 and sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-
(2.) The question of law raised in this appeal at the very thresholdis, whether mens rea (guilty mind) is an essential ingredient to constitute an offence under the Essential Commodities Act. It is, therefore, relevant to trace the history of Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act, which deals with penalties. This provision has since 1955 undergone amendments twice, once in 1967 and again in 1974. The Section as it stood originally in the statute, to the extent relevant, reads thus : "7. Penalties: (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3 (a) he shall be punishable (i) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or cl. (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.. A reading of the section discloses that there is no specific exclusion of mens rea for an act to amount to an offence under the Act. The Supreme Court had in Nathulal vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1966 S,C. 43) the occasion to construe the provision for purposes of finding out whether there was any implied exclusion of mens rea. There, it is held : 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 statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. .. .. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated " So laying down the guidelines, the Supreme Court held that the object of the Act would not be defeated if mens rea is read as an essential ingredient of the offence. Accordingly, there was no exclusion of the element of mens rea even by necessary implication.
(3.) Having regard to this decision and being influenced of the propositionof law therein, the Parliament had brought in an amendment to this provision through Amendment Act 36 of 1967. The relevant portion of the section after its amendment reads thus : "7 (1) If any person contravenes (whether knowingly, intentionally or otherwise) any order made under Section 3......" The words, "Whether knowingly, intentionally or otherwise" were incorporated in sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act by the Parliament so as to obviously, bring in a specific exclusion of the element of mens rea for an act to amount to an offence under the Act. This section after its amendment by Act 36 of 1967 was also the subject matter of construction by a Division Bench of this court in N. Panduranga Rao vs. State of A.P. (1975 (2) APLJ page 277). It was interpreted by the Division Bench thus : "As the Act stood without these amending words (whether knowingly, intentionally or otherwise) the Supreme Court held that the object of the Act would not be defeated if the mens rea is read as essential ingredient of the offence. Evidently having regard to this judgment of the Supreme Court (Nathulal's case) the amendment was introduced and as a result of this amendment, the intention of the legislature is made abundently clear namely, any contravention of the provisions of the Act, Order or conditions of the licence is punishable i.e., even if it is not done knowingly or intentionally. It is not necessary to establish the guilty mind of the person contravening the provisions of the Act or order. If the contravention is proved the punishment follows......" Thus, the Division Bench held that there is a specific exclusion of mens rea and that even in the absence of mens rea if the contravention of the provisions of the Act is proved, the person concerned is liable for punishment.;