R.N.DUTT, J. - (1.) THE respondent was tried by a Magistrate under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 51, In default to rigorous imprisonment for three weeks. The respondent thereafter made an appeal and the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondent. Thereafter the State Government has filed this appeal against this order of acquittal.
(2.) THE prosecution case was as follows: The respondent was employed under Messrs. Nandaram Deotram, a firm at Kurseong. The firm was an authorised dealer in iron and steel under the Iron and Steel (Control) Order. 1956. On November 17, 1960 the respondent sold three bundles of galvanised corrugated sheets to one Beharilal Bahsaria against permit no. 69/60, dated November 10, 1960, granted by the Sub -Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, Beharilal paid Rs. 294.52 P. as price and a cash memo was written and granted to him mentioning the rate at Rs. 880 per ton. The weight was not however mentioned in the cash memo. On November 19, 1960 Beharilal had certain suspicion about the weight and got the three bundles weighed and found the total weight as 5 Cwt. 3 Qrs. 6 Ibs. whose price at Rs. 880 per ton would be Rs. 255.34 P. The allegation against the respondent was, therefore, that he sold the G. C. sheets at a rate higher than the controlled rate.
(3.) ON this allegation the respondent was charged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for having contravened paragraphs 15 and 27 (4) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956. The learned Magistrate found that the respondent did not charge a rate in excess of the controlled rate but he held that the respondent did not mention the weight of the G. C. sheets in the cash memo which he was required to do under notification No. S. R. O. 1111/ESS. Comm. Iron and Steel and on this finding the learned Magistrate convicted the respondent under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned Sessions Judge set aside this conviction primarily on the ground that there was want of mens rea in what the respondent did, namely, in not mentioning the weight of the G. C. sheets in the cash memo.;