RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

2016-2017
Final draft of
INDIAN PENAL CODE:
Case Analysis: Nathulal vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Submitted to:- Submitted by:-

Mr. Malay Pandey Ayushi Verma
Asst.professor Section -A
Rmlnlu Roll no.37
Semester IV

1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my teacher and mentor Mr. Malay Pandey
(assistant professor), a special thanks to the Vice Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya
National Law University Mr. Gurdeep Singh for providing me with this opportunity .I also
greatly acknowledge the help and guidance provided to me by Prof. C.M. Jariwala (Dean
Academics).

Thanks and appreciation to my family members for their constant support, to the
library staff and other members of this institution and lastly to my friends for their help.

2|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 mans 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.

3|Page
 TITLE OF CASE:

The title of the case is NATHULAL v. 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 food grains 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.

4|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 sub-
section (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.

5|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. If a true non-compliance of segment 7, of the crucial items demonstration Toward

those merchant will measure will an offense there under much there will be no mens
rea ahead as much part?
2. if those component from claiming liable personality will be excluded from the parts
for offense on the minor truth that those article of the statute is will Push welfare
activities, exercises about exchange or on kill a grave social evil?. 2. If on the
Realities found those appealing party needed eagerness contravened the procurements
from claiming area 7 of the vital items Act, 1955?

JUDGEMENT

Accompanying the judgment of the majority, the claim will be allowed, those request of the
high official convicting those appealing party is put aside Furthermore the appealing party
may be cleared of the offense for which he might have been charged. Those safeguard bond
may be released. Though whatever fine need been paid, it ought to be came back.

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

6|Page
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.

With respect to the first issue the law on the subject is fairly well settled as opined by Justice
Subba Rao. It need fallen under Legal examination for this court for Numerous events. It
doesn't call for a nitty gritty discourse. It will be enough to restate those standards. Mens rea
will be a fundamental element of a criminal offense. Surely An statute might avoid the
component of mens rea, Be that it may be a callous lead from claiming development
embraced in england Furthermore likewise acknowledged to india to interpret An statutory
procurement making a offense for congruity with the normal law as opposed against it unless
the statute explicitly or Toward important suggestion excluded mens rea.

Mens rea is an urgent component of a criminal offense. The unimportant truth that the item of
the statute might be on Push welfare activities alternately will execute An grave social
abhorrence will be at itself not conclusive of the address though the individuals part from at
risk identity may be excluded beginning for the individuals parts of a offense. Mens rea in the
end Tom's examining fundamental suggestive may make excluded beginning with an statute
the polar spot it may be absolutely reasonable that the utilization of the object of the statute
may by and large settle on vanquished. Facilitating admiration to the individuals item of the
Act, namely, will control all around open interest, "around others, trade indeed commodities,
it can't make said that the article of the gesture might a chance to be pounded Previously,
mens rea will a chance to be read Concerning outline an component of the offense. 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.2 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.

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

[2] Pandey, Kumar Askand Dr., Principles of Criminal Law: Cases & Materials, Allahabad: Central Law
Publications, 2014.

7|Page
Moreover in other cases like in, Srinivas Mall Bairoliya & Another v. Emperor3, 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
without a guilty mind. Privy Council endorsed the view expressed in Brend v. Wood4 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 Ravula Hariprasad Rao v. State5, 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
offence unless a particular knowledge or intent is found to be present.

However this is not a pattern that need constantly been trailed in the indian cases; An
significant exemption with this might have been the the event for state of maharashtra v.
Mayer Hans George the place the same standard might have been reiterated. Here those
denounced might have been prosecuted Toward the state for the violation from claiming
statutory prohibitions forced under area 8 of the remote trade regulation Act, 1947, to
bringing under india prohibited amount from claiming gold. The denounced might have been
booked on visit Indonesia, Furthermore there might have been no ceasing amidst Be that as
much flight might have been ceased toward bombay the place he might have been checked,
besides he didnt knew of the procurements predominant for india. Those denounced might
have been held subject Likewise the court held that Hosting respect to those gravity of the
issues, parliament proposed those prohibition with make supreme. Whether those same might
not have been done, the thick, as object Also the reason for the act Also its viability Similarly
as a instrument flying for the counteractive action from claiming pirating might need been
totally disappointed.

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 up to 3 years and to impose heavy fines on an

[3] ILR 26 Pat 460.

[4] (1946) 62 TLR 462.
[5] AIR 1947 PC 135.

8|Page
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.

Issue 2:-

Whether on the facts found the appellant had intentionally contravened the provisions of
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?

The appellants bona fide intention on the accused can be well established from the facts of
the case. On 30th September 1960, he made an application for a license to the licensing
authority.

Form A clause 4(1) of the Order and deposited the requisite license fee. No imitation was
made to him that his application has been rejected. From time to time, he was purchasing
food grains and sending returns to the licensing authority about the grains purchased by him.
The grains which was purchased by him was not sold.

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 expectation."6

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

[6] AIR 1966 SC 43.

9|Page
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 fide belief 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
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.7

An expectation to irritate the corrective arrangements of a statute is ordinarily verifiable, in

any case, far reaching or inadequate the dialect of the statute may have all the earmarks of
being, unless a goal actually is communicated or plainly suggested, for the general decide is
that a wrongdoing is not dedicated unless the contravener has mens rea. Ordinarily full
meaning of each wrongdoing predicates a suggestion explicitly or by suggestion as to a
perspective: if the mental component of any direct asserted to be a wrongdoing is truant in
any given case, the wrongdoing so characterized is not dedicated.

The barrier of the blamed at the trial for repudiation for Section 3 of the Order was that he
had connected for a permit and had saved the imperative charge for getting a permit and had
presented an application for that sake and had since that date kept on submitting fortnightly
returns of receipts and offers of sustenance grains consistently. He likewise presented that he
had "endeavored endeavors for two months to get the permit" and the Inspector had
guaranteed him now and again that he (the litigant) "require not stress and the permit would
be sent to him at his living arrangement". This obviously adds up to a confirmation that the
appealing party intentionally carried on business as a merchant without a permit. Without a
doubt he carried on the business as a merchant in the desire in view of affirmations given to
him by the Inspector that a permit will be issued to him, however in conveying the business
as a merchant he contradicted Section 3 of the Order, since he held no permit. The specialists
under the Order are will undoubtedly issue a permit just in light of the fact that it is connected
for, nor is there any arrangement in the Order, as is to be found in specific statutes identifying
with organization of Municipalities, that consent might be regarded to be issued if for a
period determined in the statute no answer is given by the endorsed expert to an application
for give of authorization.

[7] AIR 1966 SC 45.

10 | P a g e
Justice Shah was of the opinion that the appellant had contravened Section 3 of the Order
with the knowledge that he did not hold a licence. But there can be no doubt that the State
authorities acted negligently: they did not give the appellant a hearing before rejecting his
application for a licence, and did riot even inform him about its rejection. 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 Food grains 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 food grains must be set aside.8

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.

[8] Dissenting Opinion of Justice Subba Rao at AIR 1966 SC 45.

11 | P a g e
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
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

12 | P a g e
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.

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.

13 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Huda, Syed Shamshul, The Principles of Law of Crimes in British India, Lucknow:
Eastern Book Company, 1993.
2. Prakash, R., O.P. Srivastavas 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.

14 | P a g e