Case_comment_on_nathulal_v_state_of_madh.docx

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW 2014-2015

CRIMINAL LAW- I [FINAL DRAFT] ON “CASE COMMENT on NATHULAL v STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.”[1966 Cri LJ 71] SUBMITTED FOR THE PROJECT WORK UNDERTAKEN IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) 5 YEARS INTEGRATED COURSE OF DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NLU, LUCKNOW.

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. K.A. PANDEY

YASH ARYA

PROFFESOR (Criminal Law)

B.A LLB(Hons)

Dr. R.M.L.N.L.U., LucknowROLL NO. – 156 3rd SEMESTER

1|Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Firstly, I would like to thank respected Dr. Kumar Askand Pandey, for giving me such a golden opportunity to show my skills and capability through this project. This project is the result of the extensive ultrapure study, hard work and labour, put into to make it worth reading. It is my pleasure to be indebted to various people, who directly or indirectly contributed in the development of this work and who influenced my thinking, behaviour, and acts during the course of study. Lastly, I would like to thank the almighty and my parents for their moral support and my friends with whom I shared my day-to-day experience and received improved my quality of work.

2|Page

lots of suggestions

that

TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 4

II.

TITLE OF THE PROJECT……………………………………………... 5

III.

BENCH STRENGTH………………………………………………….... 5

IV.

WHETHER UNANIMOUS/ MAJORITY JUDGMENT………………. 5

V.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE………………………………………… 5

VI.

LAW ON THE POINT………………………………………………..… 6

VII.

ISSUES INVOLVED…………………………………………………… 7

VIII.

JUDGMENT AND LAW LAID DOWN BY THE COURT…………… 7

IX.

CASE ANALYSIS……………………................................................… 7

X.

CONCLUSION..................................……………………………...… 12

XI.

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................14

3|Page

INTRODUCTION Mens rea or criminal intent is an essential element of every crime. There must be a mind at fault to constitute a criminal act. It is the combination of an act and an evil intent that distinguishes civil from criminal liability. There is generally nothing wrong in a mere act by which I mean conscious movement of the body. For instance, there is nothing wrong in mere movements that constitute an act of shooting. There is nothing wrong in shooting a bird or a rabbit. But if you shoot with the intent to kill a human being under circumstances that afford no legal justification for the act, you are guilty of murder. The definition of offences generally contains reference to an evil intent which must be present in order to hold one guilty of the said offence. Even when the definition is silent regarding intent, it has been held that on general principles an evil intent must be imported into definition of all strictly criminal offences. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, “the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention was so,” is a doctrine as old as criminal law itself. It is not an artificial principle grafted on any particular system of laws, but is a doctrine of universal application based on man’s moral sense. Mens rea is an essential element or ingredient of crime, though an universally accepted principle, is not without its limitations. In the last few decades, an entire range of social or public welfare legislation would have conceived in such a manner that the law makes the mere omission or commission of acts punishable. The necessity for mens rea has been dispensed with in respect of social or public welfare legislations. All these laws have been framed for the larger good of the society. Insisting upon the existence of mens rea to punish persons for violation of these enactments, may frustrate the purpose of the Acts and the objects for which they have been enacted. Courts have held that mens rea, as an essential element, is so much so an integral part of the definition of crime itself that it needs no specific mention. A court has to presume its requirement for imposing criminal liability, unless a statute, expressly or by necessary implication, excludes mens rea. Its exclusion cannot be inferred simply because a statute intends to combat grave social evil or to attain socio-economic welfare.

4|Page

 TITLE OF CASE: The title of the case is NATHULALv. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.

 CITATION: [1966 Cri LJ 71]; [1966 AIR SC 43].

BENCH: The case was presided over by the Full Bench in the Supreme Court which comprised of: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH AND R.S. BACHAWAT, JJ.

 WHETHER UNANIMOUS/ MAJORITY JUDGEMENT Held Subba Rao, R.S Bachawat- Concurring J.C Shah- Dissenting

 FACTS OF THE CASE  The appellant was a dealer in a foodgrains at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh.  He was Prosecuted in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Dhar, for having in stock 885 maunds and 21/4 seers of wheat for the purpose of sale without license.

 Thus the appellant was charged for committing an offence under section 7 of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955. 

The appellant pleaded that he did not intentionally contravened the provisions of the said section, and he did the storing of grains on the ground that he had applied for the license and was under believe that it will be issued to him.



Moreover he made continuous effort to get the license for two months, where the Inspector gave him assurance that that he need not worry and the license will be sent to his residence



The appellant also continued to submit the returns on the food grains stored and purchased to the respected authority.



So when tried in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Dhar, the appellant was acquitted on the finding that he had not the guilty mind.

5|Page



On appeal a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, set aside the order of acquittal and convicted him on the basis that in case arising under the act the idea of guilty mind was different from that arising in the case like theft, and that he contravened the provision of the act and the order made thereunder.



It sentenced the appellant to rigorous punishment for one year and to a fine of Rs.2000. and in its default a further imprisonment of 6 months.



So Nathulal appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court considered both English and Indian case law authority on deciding the issue.

 LAWS INVOLVED Section 7 in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955  (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 clause (i) of subsection (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:

The Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958  Section 2.-In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires,-(a) "dealer" means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale, of any one or more of the food grains in quantity of one hundred maunds or more at any one time whether on one's own account or in partnership or in association with any other person or as a commission agent or arhatiya, and whether or not in conjunction with any other business.

 Section. 3. (1) No person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a license issued in this behalf by the licensing authority.

6|Page

 (2) For the purpose of this clause, any person who stores any food grains in quantity of one hundred maunds or more at any one time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the food grains for the purposes of sale.

ISSUE: 1. Whether a factual non-compliance of Section 7, of the Essential Commodities Act by the dealer will amount to an offence thereunder even there is no mens rea on his part? Whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of offence on the mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities, activities of trade or to eradicate a grave social evil? 2. Whether on the facts found the appellant had intentionally contravened the provisions ofSection 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?

JUDGEMENT Following the judgment of the majority, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court convicting the appellant is set aside and ‘‘the appellant is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. The bail bond is discharged. If any fine has been paid, it shall be returned.

CASE ANALYSIS Issue 1:Now with respect to the first issue, questioning that whether a factual non-compliance of the provisions of the act, without a guilty mind i.e. with absence of mens rea, would it constitute to be an offence. The counsel for the respondent argues on this behalf that the act being made in the interests of general public for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain commodities, mens rea is not one of the ingredients of the offence. As in certain various other Indian cases it was held, generally offences created by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Drugs Act, Weights and Measures Act are in terms of absolute prohibition and the offender is liable without proof of guilty knowledge1.

[1] Sarjoo Prasad v State of U.P.[AIR 1961 SC 631]

7|Page

Whereas Justice Subba Rao, opined on the following with respect to the first issue, that the law on the subject is fairly well settled. It has come under judicial scrutiny of this Court on many occasions. It does not call for a detailed discussion. It is enough to restate the principles. 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. 2 Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. The mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is by itself not decisive of the question whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated. Having regard to the object of the Act, namely, to control in general public interest, among others, trade in certain commodities, it cannot be said that the object of the Act would be defeated if mens rea is read as an ingredient of the offence. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated. The Supreme Court has invariably ruled that mens rea would be a necessary ingredient of crime unless it is either expressly or by necessary implication, ruled out. The ‘necessary implication’ should not be readily inferred to rule out the fault element unless doing so would defeat the object and purpose of the statute. The doctrine of mens rea would be applied with great vigour in those cases which carry corporal punishment of severe nature. 3 As in the present case the provision of punishment was 3 years, and the appellant was charged with one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of 2000 Rs. Moreover in other cases like in, Srinivas Mall Bairoliya & Another v.Emperor4, the Privy Council observed that there was no ground for saying that the offences against Defence of India Act, comes within the exceptional and limited class of offences, that can be committed

[2] AIR 1966 SC 44. [3] Pandey, Kumar Askand Dr., Principles of Criminal Law: Cases & Materials, Allahabad: Central Law Publications, 2014. [4] ILR 26 Pat 460.

8|Page

without a guilty mind. Privy Council endorsed the view expressed in Brend v.Wood5 and opined that offences which are within the class of offences requiring no fault element are usually of a comparatively minor character, and it would be surprising result of this delegated legislation if a person who was morally innocent of blame could be held vicariously liable for a servants crime and so punishable “with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 3 years”. In RavulaHariprasad Rao v.State6, the court followed the decision of Privy Council in Srinivas Mall case, and held that no person can be charged with the commission of an offenceunless a particular knowledge or intent is found to be present. But this is not a trend that has always been followed in the Indian cases; a major exception to this was the case of State of Maharashtra v.Mayer Hans George7 where the same principle was reiterated. Here the accused was prosecuted by the state for the violation of statutory prohibitions imposed under Section 8 of the Foreign exchange Regulation Act, 1947, for bringing into India prohibited quantity of gold. The accused was scheduled to visit Indonesia, and there was no stopping in between but his flight was stopped at Bombay where he was checked, moreover he didn’t knew of the provisions prevalent in India. The accused was held liable as the court held that having regard to the gravity of the issues, Parliament intended the prohibition to be absolute. If the same would not have been done, the very object and the purpose of the act and its effectiveness as an instrument for the prevention of smuggling would have been entirely frustrated. Thus, with reference to the present case it cannot be said that the object of the Act is, namely, to control in general public interest, among others, trade in certain commodities will be defeated if mens rea is read as an ingredient of the offence. The provision does not lead to any such exclusion. Indeed, it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to impose heavy penalties like imprisonment for a period upto 3 years and to impose heavy fines on an innocent person who carries on business in an honest belief that he is doing the business in terms of the law. A person would commit an offence under Section 7 of the Act if he intentionally contravenes any order made under Section 3 of the Act. So construed the object of the Act will be best served and innocent persons will also be protected from harassment.

[5] (1946) 62 TLR 462. [6] AIR 1947 PC 135. [7]Cri Appeal No. 218 of 1963, dated 24-8-1964.

9|Page

Issue 2:Whether on the facts found the appellant had intentionally contravened the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955? The bona fide intention on the accused can be well established from the facts of the case, that the appellant on September 30, 1960, made an application for a license to the licensing authority in Form A, Clause 4 (1) of the Order and deposited the requisite license fee. There was no intimation to him that his application was rejected. He was purchasing food-grains from time to time and sending returns to the Licensing Authority showing the grains purchased by him. He did not sell any grains purchased by him.When the accused was questioned by the Magistrate he stated thus: "I deposited the fee by challan for getting the license for the year 1961. I submitted the application. I continued to submit the fortnightly returns of receipts and. sales of food-grains regularly. No objection was raised at the time when returns were submitted. I made continuous efforts for two months to get the license. The Inspector gave me assurance that I need not worry, the license will be sent to my residence. It was told by the Inspector Bage. I was asked to drop donation of Rs. 10 in the donation box for the treatment of soldiers. It was told that if the donation is dropped, the license will be issued within a day or two. I wanted to drop Rs. 5 only. In this way licenses were determined. Other dealers also continued to do the business in the like manner. The business was done with a good intention."8 Thus on the above evidences recorded by the court of Additional District Magistrate, the court agreed that the accused stored the good under a bona fide intention that the license for which he had applied was issued to him, though actually not sent to him, but in original his application form was rejected and its rejection was not communicated to him, thus confirming his belief. And on that bona fidebelief that he was legally entitled to do so, he stored the food grains beyond the prescribed limit.“He did not, therefore, intentionally contravene the provisions of Section 7 of the Act or those of the Order made under Section 3 of the Act. In the result we set aside the order of the High Court convicting the appellant and

[8] AIR 1966 SC 43.

10 | P a g e

acquit him of the offence with which he was charged. The bail bond is discharged. If any fine had been paid, it shall be returned.”9 An intention to offend the penal provisions of a statute is normally implicit, however, comprehensive or unqualified the language of the statute may appear to be, unless an intention to the contrary is expressed or clearly implied, for the general rule is that a crime is not committed unless the contravener has mens rea. Normally full definition of every crime predicates a proposition expressly or by implication as to a state of mind: if the mental element of any conduct alleged to be a crime is absent in any given case, the crime so defined is not committed.

They continued to accept the returns submitted by him from time to time, and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the appellant that the Inspector had given him assurances from time to time that a licence would be issued to him. He was, therefore, of the view that no serious view of the contravention of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, may be taken, and a fine of Rs. 50 would meet the ends of justice. The order forfeiting the stocks of foodgrains must be set aside.10 Interestingly, Shah J, agreed with the majority opinion as to application of the doctrine of mens rea in statutory offences, but applying the propositions to the fact of the case, came to the conclusion that the accused has knowingly contravened the provisions of the law and thus pronounced him guilty. Taking note of the said decision of the Supreme Court in the present case the parliament proposed changes in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in order to exclude mens rea, and for the said purpose Act 36 of 1967 was introduced. But in later amendments the parliament restored its original position by the Act 30 of 1974 by restoring its position before 1967.

CONCLUSION The definition of a particular crime, either in statute or under common law, will contain the required actus reus and mens rea for the offence. The prosecution has to prove both of these elements so that the magistrates or jury are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of their [9] AIR 1966 SC 45. [10] Dissenting Opinion of Justice Subba Rao at AIR 1966 SC 45.

11 | P a g e

existence. If this is not done, the person will be acquitted, as in Indian law all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In statutory interpretation, certain presumptions are taken into account by the court while interpreting the statutes. The presumption relevant here is that a criminal act in general requires the presence of mens rea. Almost all crimes that exist independently of any statute require, for their commission, some blameworthy state of mind on the part of the actor. Where a statute creates an offence, no matter how comprehensive and absolute the language of the statute is, it is usually understood to be silently requiring that the element of mens rea be imported into the definition of the crime (offence) so defined, unless a contrary intention is express or implied. Hence, the plain words of a statute are read subject to a presumption (of arguable weight), which may be rebutted, that the general rule of law that no crime can be committed unless there is mens rea has not been ousted by the particular enactment. Today, the kinds of offences are multiplied by various regulations and orders to such an extent that it is difficult for most of the law abiding subjects to avoid offending against the law at all times. Some law, out of so many, could be violated by chance without a guilty intention at some point of time. In these circumstances, it seems to be more important than ever to adhere to this principle. But, there is more to it. In the past, it also seemed that the importance of this presumption of mens rea was declining in importance. Cases of State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George&Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra are some important examples where the exception to the presumption requiring mens rea has been applied. In these cases, punishment was given for statutory offences, without mens rea on the part of the accused. This generally does happen in such offences, due to them being linked with public welfare and national interest. But, in certain other cases, the element of mens rea is somehow or the other incorporated into the definition of the statutory offences, thereby helping out the accused. In spite of the rule being developed that the presumption requiring mens rea will not be used in cases of Statutory Offences, there have been situations where it has been used. Hence, it can be seen that even though a rule of not using the presumption in Statutory Offences has developed, the presumption is still used when the courts feel fit or necessary for it to be used, in order to maintain justice.

12 | P a g e

To conclude, it can be said that the rules in courts regarding where and how to use the presumption requiring mens rea have been developing since quite a long time. In fact, courts have formed their own rules regarding application of the presumption in normal cases, statutory offences, and even on when not to use the presumption in statutory offences. But, still, at times, conflicts of thoughts do occur on whether to apply it or not. In such a situation, it would be pretty appropriate to cite a judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the implied exclusion of mens rea in Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in the case of Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court had said that:-“Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes it. The mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is by itself not decisive of the question whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Huda, Syed Shamshul, The Principles of Law of Crimes in British India, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 1993. 2. Prakash, R., O.P. Srivastava’s Principles of Criminal Law, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2010. 3. Pandey, Kumar Askand Dr., Principles of Criminal Law in India: Cases & Materials, Allahabad: Central Law Publications, 2014. 4. Pillai, P.S.A, Criminal Law, New Delhi: Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2008. 5. Turner, JW Cecil, Outlines of Criminal Law, Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2006. 6. Williams, Glanville, A Textbook of Criminal Law, New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2003.

13 | P a g e