LexRAVULA HARIPRASADA RAO versus THE STATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961 Ma1'Ch 19, 322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [h)51] RAVULA HARIPRASADA RAO 11. THE STATE. [SAIYID FAZL ALI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MUKHERJEA, and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] Criminal law-Mens rea-'-M otor Spirit Rationing Order, 1.941, els. 22, 25, '1:1-Defence of India Rules, 1939, r. 81 (4)-Supply of petrol without coupons-Omission to make prescribed ·entries in coupons-Liability of employer for acts of employees-C onstrudion of statutes. Unless a statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of the crime, a person should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind. Clauses 22 and 25 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, read with the Defence of India Rules, 1939, do not rule out the necessity of mens rea. Therefore, where the employees of the licensee of a petrol filling station supply petrol to a car-owner without taking coupons and thus act in contravention of the pro- visions of the said clauses, the licensee, who was not present when the wrongful act was done and had no knowledge of it, could not be convicted for contravention of the said clauses under r. 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. Clause Z1 of the said Order is however differently worded aud imposes a duty on the supplier to endorse or cause to be endorsed the registration or other identifying mark of the vehicle to which petrol is furnished and if these particulars are not endorsed by his employees on the petrol coupons against which petrol is supplied the supplier would be liable even if he had no knowledge of the wrongful act of his employees. Srinivas Mall Bairolia v. King Emperor (l.L.R. 26 Pat. 46, P.C.) and Isak Solomon Macmull v. Emperor (A.l.R. 1948 Born. 364) referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Appeal (Crimi- nal Appeal No. 15 of 1950) from a judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 19th August, 1947. in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 1017 and 1018 of 1946 rejecting an application to set aside the convic- tion and sentence of the appellant by the Sessions Judge of Guntur under clauses 22 and 27 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941. Special leave was . S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 323 granted by the Privy Council and the, appeal was originally registered as Privy Council Appeal No. 14 of 1949. The case was subsequently transferred to the Supreme Court. K. Bhimasankaran (Durga Bai, with him) for the appellant. R. Ganapathi·Iyer, for the respondent. 1951. March 19, The judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZL ALI J.-This appeal, whic~ has been preferred after obtaining special leave to appeal from the Privy Council, is confined to the single question whether mells rea is necessary to constitute an offence under section 81 of the Defence of India Rules. The facts of the case are briefly these. The appellant is the licensee of two petrol filling stations Nos. 552 and 276 at Guntur but is a resident of Chirala, 40 miles away. He is a Presidency First Class Bench Magistrate at Chirala and manages what has been described as a vast business at several places. Ch. Ven- katarayudu and Dadda Pichayya, his employees, were respectively in charge of the aforesaid filling stations. In 1946, the appellant and his two employees were tried before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Guntur in respect 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 3 cars without taking coupons, in contravention of clause 22 read with clause 5 of the said Order promulgated un- der rule 81 (2) of the Defence of India Rules and that they, on the same day and atthe 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 cas.e were that the appellant and the employee in the second pump simi- larly supplied during the period of 24 hours from 6 a. m. of the 28th June, 1945, petrol to 4 motor vehicles 1951 v. TheS«m. Fail Ali J. 1951 Hari,pf'a8ada Rao v. 'l'he State. l!'azt Ali J. 324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1951] without taking coupons, in contravention of clause 22 read with clause 5, accepted coupons of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.