Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment dated 29-05-1950, passed by the Bombay High Court (‘the High Court’), the three-judges bench of M.C. Mahajan, Vivian Bose* and B. Jagannadhadas, JJ., stated that apparent that the clerks in charge were careless, for the delivery order of 12-04-1947, as Bholabhai Jagjiwandas was showed as the Commission Agent while the signature at the bottom showed that Shantilal and Company actually accepted and received the goods, whereas other delivery orders of the same consignment correctly entered the name of Shantilal and Company. The Supreme Court opined that quite clearly, this was innocent carelessness, because if there had been any dishonesty involved either Shantilal or Bholabhai would have been entered in all the orders and if the name of Bholabhai was entered, care would have been taken to forge a signature on behalf of Bholabhai.
Therefore, the Supreme Court opined that merely because a mistake had occurred, it could not lead to an inference of bad faith and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants.
Background
In the present case, two appeals were filed from the convictions under the Essential Supplies Act, 1946, and since they involved the same subject matter, they were taken up together for adjudication.
Shree Kishan and Company was the quota-holder, and the two returns were made to the Textile Commissioner, one for 25 bales of the April, delivery on 12-05-1947 and the other for 13 bales of the May, delivery on 14-6-1947. The name of the quota-holder was rightly entered but in the delivery column of the printed form the names of Bholabhai Jagjiwandas and Champaklal Hiralal were wrongly entered, as the right party was S. Shantilal and Company.
The mistake was discovered in October and on 03-10-1947 the manager of the Appellant 1 pointed out the mistake to the Textile Commissioner and sent a correction slip and asked that the original returns to be amended. The prosecution stated that the mistake was not accidental but deliberate. The Presidency Magistrate convicted and sentenced the Appellant 1-Seksaria Cotton Mills Limited to a fine of Rs 10,000 on each count and the Appellant 2-the Managing Director, to two months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000 on each count. The High Court upheld the convictions and the sentence of fine on the first appellant but in the case of the second appellant, it set aside the sentence of imprisonment and reduced the fine to Rs 10,000 on each count. Therefore, the present appeal was filed by the appellant to set aside the conviction and sentence.
Appellant-1’s General Manager was also prosecuted and was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 4,000 on each count. This was upheld on appeal to the High Court. Thus, he had also filed the second appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Supreme Court stated that the High Court had proceeded on the assumption that the prosecution must prove that the inaccuracies were not innocent but that they were made with a guilty mind. Therefore, the only question before the Supreme Court was whether mens rea was proved and whether all reasonable likelihood of innocent mistakes were excluded.
The Supreme Court stated that this case was like Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay, (1953) 1 SCC 561, (‘Seksaria Cotton Mills case’) wherein the purchaser Shree Kishan and Company changed its local agent. Originally, it had appointed the two agents, namely, Bholabhai Jagjiwandas and Champaklal Hiralal, but on 25-3-1947 it changed its local agent to S. Shantilal and Company. The only difference between the present case and Seksaria Cotton Mills case (supra) was that in the present case the goods were delivered to the proper persons, namely, S. Shantilal & Company, and were accepted by them. There was no tender to the original agents.
The Supreme Court stated that Bholabhai Jagjiwandas and Champaklal had a very definite connection with Shree Kishan and Company and up to a certain date, they were the proper agents for accepting delivery. Further, a letter dated 25-3-1947 showed that there was a change of agents. However, it was also apparent that the clerks in charge were careless, for the delivery order of 12-04-1947, as it showed Bholabhai Jagjiwandas as the Commission Agent while the signature at the bottom showed that Shantilal and Company actually accepted and received the goods, whereas other delivery orders of the same consignment correctly enter the name of Shantilal and Company.
The Supreme Court opined that quite clearly, this was innocent carelessness, because if there had been any dishonesty involved either Shantilal or Bholabhai would have been entered in all the orders and if the name of Bholabhai was entered, care would have been taken to forge a signature on behalf of Bholabhai. The Supreme Court stated that “the assumption that innocent mistakes cannot be made even by responsible persons betrays to our mind a want of experience of the world and of the actual conduct of business affairs particularly in the business world.” It was not that the businessmen were the only offenders, as the government offices and officers were also no exception to this rule.
Therefore, the Supreme Court opined that mere fact that a mistake had occurred, could not lead to an inference of bad faith. The burden was on the prosecution, therefore, if the prosecution felt the clerk should show that the mistake was not innocent, it was for them to call the clerk. This was not a civil case where the burden of proof could shift from stage to stage. Further, regarding the mistake about delivery of five bales to Parekh Dyeing and Printing Works, it was evident that this firm received bales of cloth for printing in the ordinary course of its business and the mere fact that five bales were wrongly received due to a mistake which was corrected soon after was not sufficient to justify an inference of bad faith.
Thus, considering the facts of the case with burden on the prosecution, the Supreme Court opined that the conclusion reached was not of a prudent man and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants. The Supreme Court stated that if the fines were paid, it would be refunded.
[Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay, (1953) 1 SCC 600, decided on 30-03-1953]
Note: Essentiality of mens rea
Mens rea is a latin term, which means guilty mind. The Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’, which means the act does not make the person guilty unless the mind is also guilty, expresses the essential concept of mens rea. It recognizes that for an individual to be held criminally responsible, they must have intended to commit the illegal act or had an awareness regarding the consequences of their actions. It requires a subjective assessment of the mental state of the accused, exploring factors such as intention, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence.
In Indian law several legal provisions emphasize its significance. Section 299 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) defines culpable homicide as causing death with the intention of causing death, or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Section 300 of IPC states that murder includes acts done with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that such acts are likely to cause death. Further, Section 304-A of IPC deals with causing death by negligence, highlighting the importance of mens rea by specifying that the act must be done with a rash or negligent state of mind.
*Judgment authored by- Justice Vivian Bose
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: M.P. Amin, Senior Advocate (R.J. Kolah, Advocate, with him), A.K. Muthuswami Iyer, Advocate;
For the Respondent: C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (Porus A. Mehta, Advocate, with him).
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
