Case Note & Summary
The present reference arose from an order dated 16/03/2019 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Application (APL) No. 731 of 2015 and Criminal Application (APL) No. 527 of 2016. The applicants, Digambar Wankhede and Rajendra Sharma, were accused of possessing essential commodities in violation of control orders under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The seized commodities were sought to be confiscated under Section 6A of the Act. The core legal issue was whether mere seizure of essential commodities is sufficient for confiscation under Section 6A, or whether mens rea (guilty mind) must be proved. The applicants argued that Section 6A requires mens rea and that confiscation without proof of intentional violation violates principles of natural justice. The State contended that Section 6A is a strict liability provision and that seizure alone justifies confiscation. The Court analyzed the language of Section 6A, which uses the phrase 'in respect of which any offence is believed to have been committed,' and held that this implies a requirement of mens rea. The Court reasoned that the provision is not strict liability and that the prosecution must prove intentional violation of the control order. The Court also emphasized that confiscation proceedings must comply with natural justice, including giving the person an opportunity of being heard. The Court answered the reference by holding that mens rea is required for confiscation under Section 6A, and mere seizure is not sufficient. The matters were remanded to the appropriate bench for further proceedings in light of this ruling.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation - Mens Rea - Section 6A Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - The question was whether mere seizure of essential commodities is sufficient for confiscation under Section 6A or whether mens rea is required. The Court held that Section 6A requires mens rea for confiscation, and mere seizure without proof of intentional violation of control order does not justify confiscation. (Paras 11-25) B) Criminal Law - Mens Rea - Essential Commodities Act - Section 6A Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - The Court examined the nature of Section 6A and concluded that it is not a strict liability provision; mens rea is an essential ingredient for confiscation. The burden is on the prosecution to prove intentional violation. (Paras 15-30) C) Natural Justice - Confiscation Proceedings - Section 6A Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - The Court emphasized that confiscation proceedings under Section 6A must comply with principles of natural justice, including giving the person an opportunity of being heard. (Paras 20-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether mere seizure of essential commodities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is sufficient for confiscation under Section 6A, or whether mens rea is required to be proved.
Final Decision
The Court answered the reference by holding that mens rea is required for confiscation under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and mere seizure is not sufficient. The matters were remanded to the appropriate bench for further proceedings.
Law Points
- Essential Commodities Act
- 1955
- Section 6A
- mens rea
- confiscation
- seizure
- control order
- criminal liability
- strict liability
- burden of proof
- natural justice
