Exclusion of mens rea under Indian Penal Code

Exclusion of mens rea under Indian Penal Code written by Prapti Kothari student of Institute of Law, Nirma university

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH V. NARAYAN SINGH AND ORS., AIR 1989 SC 1789

MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE-

Two Appeals involving the same questions of law were heard concurrently- The respondents, in the first appeal being lorry driver and two cleaners and in the second appeal being lorry driver and coolie, were carrying 200 and 170 fertilizer bags respectively in trucks from Indore, Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra. They were stopped at a Sales Tax barrier near the border of Maharashtra.
The documents confiscated from them contained the invoices and other records but did not include permits given under the Fertilizers (Movement Control) Order, 1973. They were then taken to court for lacking a legitimate authorization under the FMC Order of 1973, set out in sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955, for exporting fertilizers from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra.
The defendants did not deny that they were carrying fertilizer bags in their Lorries and that these lorries belonged to them. However, the defendants assert that they were oblivious of the nature of the documents seized from them and were not consciously involved in violating the rules and regulations laid under the F.M.C. Order by exporting the fertilizer bags from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra.

ISSUES

1. Whether defendants must establish “mens rea” on their part in exporting fertilizer bags lacking a valid permit and for obtaining their conviction under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?
2. Whether the facts on account only represented the preparation by the defendants in compliance with section 3 of the E.C. Act of 1955 on the export of fertilizer bags from one state to another without authorization and therefore not an attempt to export fertilizer bags?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955
• Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973
• Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code,1860

ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES

It was contended by the appellants that the key terms “whether knowingly, intentionally or otherwise” were laid down and incorporated in Section 7 in order to prohibit persons from committing offenses under the Act and avoiding prosecution on the grounds that the offenses were not deliberately committed. Hence, here the element of mens rea is not the only factor for convicting a person. Secondly, this was not a case of mere preparation. The export would have been an accomplished act and the fertilizer bags would have been effectively taken to Maharashtra State in breach of the F.M.C. Order if the defendants were not stopped at the Sendhwa sales tax barrier.
On the other hand, respondents contended that they were oblivious of the nature of the documents confiscated from them and they did not breach the rules and regulations laid under the F.M.C. Order by exporting the fertilizer bags from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra in a deliberate manner. They contended that the prosecution has lacked enough evidence to prove the accused were attempting to export fertilizer bags from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra. Moreover, they presented that the materials on record (invoice and other documents) only established mere preparation on their side.

JUDGEMENT

The judgment of the Trial Magistrate and the High Court on appeal was found to be arbitrary and unreasonable by the apex bench. It maintained that the defendants were guilty of the offense in violation of the Fertilizers (Movement and Control) Order, 1973 read with sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Nevertheless, since the case was 15 years old and the defendants were discharged 15 years earlier, the Supreme Court granted the appeal without sentencing them.

ANALYSIS

ISSUE I- “Mens Rea”

The terms used in section 7(1) are “if any person violates whether, knowingly, deliberately or otherwise, any order provided under section 3” takes within its fold contraventions done on otherwise, i.e., inadvertently. Consequently, the ‘mens rea’ factor is not an essential element if the facts of the export or the attempt to export are determined by the corroboration on hand.

ISSUE II- “Preparation or Attempt”

There are four elements at the beginning of an offense- Intention, Planning/Preparation, Attempt, and Performance. The first two elements will not trigger culpability, but the third and fourth elements will unquestionably attract it. In the present context, if the interference had not occurred, the export would have been an accomplished act and in flagrant violation of the F.M.C. Order, the fertilizer bags would have been effectively taken to Maharashtra State.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the Trial Court and High Court are wrong in taking the view that mens rea needs to be proved. In 1967, these terms were introduced in section 7 in order to prevent people from avoiding prosecution and punishment on the grounds that the offenses were not committed intentionally and thus, it was not an instance of mere planning or preparation, that is, the defendants trying to obtain fertilizer bags from someone or attempting to employ a lorry (truck) to carry those bags to Maharashtra. Evidently, these were cases of attempted illicit export of fertilizer bags and not cases of simple preparation. Thus, the respondents were caught in the act of exporting.