LexSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. versus ACHARYA D. PANDEY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
D
E
F
G
H
557
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
v.
A CHARY A D. PANDEY & ORS.
October 12, 1970
[S. M. SIKRI AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.;
Bombay f?ublic Trust Act 1~50 ss. 35(1), 66-8cope o/-ll1ens Rea-
l/ necessary ingredient.
On the allea.ations, that the Isl accused, who was
the Acharya of
a public trust withdrew monies from the trust fund to meet bis tax liabili·
ties, that the other accused as trustees connived at the c·ontravcnt!ons
of the law, and that the
monies were r•imbursed
later the accuaed
were convicted under 11. 3S(i) and 66 of the Jjlombay Public Trust Aot,
1950. In appeal, the Hi11h Court acquitted. the accused, holdln11 that
the requisite m•n• r1a wu not proved a11aln1t the ht accused, and that
the other accuaed were not trustees at the time of the Qllepd cffence.
Oisml•olna the appeal,
HELD : The broad principles accepted by Courts with reaard to the
question whether a crime can be said to have been committed without
the necessary mens rea. are : Where an offence is created 'by statute, how·
ever, comprehensive and unqualift.ed the languaae of the statute, it. is
usually understood as silently requiri~g th{!t
t~e element of mens 1·ea
should be imported into the definition of the crime, unless a contrary
intention is expressed or implied.
In other words, the plain words
of
statute are read subject to a presumption, which may be rebutted, that the
general rule of law that no crime can· be committed unless there is
"""'' rea has not been ousted by the particular enactment. Mens rta
means some blameworthy mental
condition. whether
constituted.
by
knowledge or intention or
otherwise. But this rules has
several ex·
ceptions. [560 HJ
The principal classes of exceptions may be reduced to three. One
is a class of 4cU; which are not criminal in any real sense, but are acts
which in the public interest prohibited und~r a penalty. Another class
compreherds some, and perhaps all, public nUisances.
Lastely, there
may be cases in which although the pro'°eding is criminal in form, it is
really only a summary mode of enforcing a civil right.
But except in
such cases as these, there must in general be guilty knowledge on the part
of the defendant, or of some one whom he has put in his place to act
for him, generally or in the particular matter in order to constitute and
offence. The present case falls within the fiist category [561 GJ
Section 35(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act creates a quasi·
criminal offence. It is a regulatory provision. It is enacted with a view
to safeguard the interest of the public regarding trust money. The offence
in question is punishable only with fine.
The conviction under that does
not carry any stigma.
The language of the provision appears to make
i!s contravention an absolute liability. Consequently. the requirement of
mens rea cannot be read into it. [563 A]
·
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos.
2 to 12 of 1968.
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.R,
Appeals by special Jeave from the judgments and orders dated
A
June 25, 1965 and February 20, 1967 of the Gujarat High Court
in Cr. Appeals Nos. 828 of 1965 etc.
Urmila Kapoor woo S. P. Nayar, for the appellants.
V. K. Sanghi, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Conrt was delivered by
Hegde, J,
These appeals arise from two complaints field by
the Charity Commissioner, State of Gujarat under
s. 35 ( 1)
read with s. 66 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (which
will hereinafter be referred to as the Act). Jn those complaints
10 accused were proceeded against. It was said that they were
the trustees of two trusts known as "Shree Swaminarayan Mandir"
and "Narayan Mandir".
The !st accused in both those com·
plaints was the Acharya, the I 0th was said to be the Mahan!
and the other accused the associated trustees at
the
relevant
time.
It was said that all thes.e trustees were appointed under
two different schemes framed by the High Court of
Bombay.
The trial court convicted the accused but in appeal the High
Court of Gujarat acquitted all of them.
It held that there is
no proof to show that accused 2 to 10 were the trustees of the
institutions at the time the alleged offence took place. It allow-
ed the. appeal of the !st accused on the ground that the prose-
cution has failed to prove the required mens rea on his part.
The State of Gujarat and the Charity Commissioner have brought
these appeals after obtaining special leave fromExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.