STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus NARAYAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 25-07-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. NATARAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
NARAYAN SINGH & ORS. 
JULY 25, 1989 
[S. NATARAJAN AND A.M. AHMADI,JJ.] 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Sections 3 & 7 (as amended by 
Act 36 of 1967)-Scope of-Whether includes unintentional contra-
vention. 
A 
B 
Fertiliser (Movement Control) Order, 1973: Clauses 2(a) and 3-
C 
Violation of-Export of fertilisers without permit-Pro§ecution-
Whether required to prove mens rea. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 511. Attempt-Carrying ferti-
lisers in trucks without a permit-Trucks moving from Madhya Pradesh 
to Maharashtra-interception_ at Sales Tax Barrier near State Border-:--· D 
Whether attempted commission of offence. 
The respondenu wllo were lorry drivers, cleaners and coolie were 
carrying fertiliser bags in trneks from Indore (Madhya Pradesh) to 
Maharashtra- They were intercepted at a Sales Tax Barrier near the 
border of Maharashtra State. The documents seized from the lorry 
E 
drivers contained the invoices and other reeords, but did not include 
permits issued under the Fertilisers (Movement Control) Order, 1973. 
Consequently, they were prosecuted under the Fertiliser (Movement 
Control) Order, 1973 read with sections 3 and 7 of the Essential 
Commodities Act, 1955 for exporting fertilisers from Madhya Pradesh 
to Maharashtra without a valid permit. 
F 
The Trial Court acquitted the respondents holding that: (i) the 
prosecution had failed to prove men.< rea on the part of the respondents, 
and (ii) the act of transportation of the fertiliser bags in trueks by the 
-respondents constituted merely preparation and not attempted commis-
sion of the offence. 
G 
Appeals were filed by the State against the acquittal under section 
378(3) of the Cr. P.C. 1973 but the High _Court declined to grant leave. 
Hence these appeals by the State. 
Allowing.the appeals, 
549 
H 
A 
B 
c 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1989) 3 S.C.R. 
HELD: I. The words used in section 7( I) are "if any person 
contravenes whether knowingly, intentionally or otherwise any Order 
made under section 3". The section is comprehensively worded so that 
it takes within its fold not only contraventions done knowingly or inten-
tionally but even otherwise, i.e., done unintentionally. The element of 
mens rea in export of fertiliser hags without a valid permit is therefore 
not a necessary ingredient for convicting a person for contravention of 
an order made under section 3 if the factum of export or attempt to 
export is established by the evidence on record. l554C-D) 
I. I. The crucial words "whether knowingly, intentionally or 
otherwise" were inserted in section 7 in order to prevent persons com- ._.fi-
mitting offences under the Act escaping punishment on the plea that the 
offences were not committed deliberately. The amendment was brought 
about in 1967 in order to achieve the avowed purpose and object of the 'f 
legislation. l557C) 
1.2. Therefore, the Trial Court and the High Court committed an 
D 
error in taking the view that the respondents in each of the appeals were 
not liable for conviction for contravention of the Fertiliser (Movement 
Control) Order, 197 3 read with sections 3 and 7 of the Essential 
Commodities Act, 1955 because the prosecution had failed to prove 
mens rea on their part in transporting fertiliser hags from Madhya 
Pradesh to Maharashtra. l557E) 
E 
F 
Swastik Oil Industries v. State, 11978) 19 Guj. Law Reporter 
1117; approved. 
Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.LR. 1966 S.C. 43, 
referred to. 
2. In the commission of an offence there are four stages viz. inten-
tion, preparation, attempt and execution. The first two stages would 
not attract culpability hut the third and fourth stages would certainly 
attract culpability. [557G) 
G 
2.1. The respondents in each case were actually caught in the act 
of exporting fertiliser hags without a permit therefor from Madhya 
Pradesh to Maharashtra. If the interception bad not taken place at the 
y 
Sales Tax Barrier the export would have become a completed act and 
the fertiliser hags would have been successfully taken to Maharashtra 
State in contravention of the Fertiliser (Movement Control) Order, 
H 
1973. It was not therefore a case of mere preparation viz. the respon-
.{ 
~ 
:; 
i 
~ 
+ 
j 
.. 
STATE OF M.P. '·NARAYAN SINGH [NATARAJAN. J.J 
551 
dents trying to procure fertiliser bags from someone or trying to engage 
A 
a lorry for taking those bags to Maharashtra. They were cases where 
the bags bad been procured and were

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.