MURARILAL GARG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a storing agent at three places, Deogarh, Barkote and Gagua. He had procured food grains licenses. Prosecution case is that though under the licence the petitioner was to maintain a register of daily accounts for each of the food-grains showing correctly the opening and the closing stock of each day, he failed to do so. Though the petitioner did not plead guilty, in his examination under Section 342, Cr. P. C. he did not deny the fact that he did not maintain the accounts at Barkote in accordance with the license. The petitioner was summarily tried under Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and was convicted under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to undergo Rule I. for one year. The Revision has been filed against the order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) MR. Das docs not dispute the finding of the fact that the petitioner did not maintain accounts in accordance with the directions given in the license. The only point urged by him is that there is absence of mens rea, and that unless the prosecution establishes the mens rea, the conviction is not well founded. For proper appreciation of this contention the relevant law on the point may be examined.

(3.) SECTION 3 (1) of the Act prescribes--"if the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supply of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. The relevant portions of Section 3 (2) prescribes :