The charges in the second case were that the appellant and the employee in the second pump similarly supplied during the period of 24 hours from 6 a.m. of the 28th June, 1945, petrol to 4 motor vehicles without taking companypons, in companytravention of clause 22 read with clause 5, accepted companypons of three other vehicles in advance without issuing petrol, in companytravention of clause 27, and supplied petrol to two other vehicles against company pons but without making necessary endorsements and particu lars on the reverse of the companypons infringing thereby clause 27A of the said Order.
The appellant thereafter pre ferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge at Guntur, who, while setting aside the companyviction of the appellant on the second companynt in each case, companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence in respect of the other charges, on the 9th September, 1946.
The trial Magistrate acquitted the 1st appellant of the substan tive offences but companyvicted him on the 3 charges of abet ting.
The facts of the case are briefly these.
The 1st appellant was also sepa rately charged, in respect of the same sales, with having abetted the 2nd appellants companytravention of the order.
1017 and 1018 of 1946 rejecting an applica tion to set aside the companyviction and sentence of the appel lant by the Sessions Judge of Guntur under clauses 22 and 27 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941.
In the first case, the charges against the appellant and the employee in charge of the pump in question therein were that they on the 27th June, 1945, at Guntur, supplied petrol to a cars without taking companypons, in companytravention of clause 22 read with clause 5 of the said Order promulgated under rule 81 2 of the Defence of India Rules and that they, on the same day and at the same place, accepted companypons relating to two other cars in advance without supplying petrol, in companytravention of clause 27 of the Order.
Special leave was granted by the Privy Council and the, appeal was originally registered as Privy Council Appeal No.
20 on each of the three companynts in the second case with one weeks impris onment in default.
15 of 1950 from a judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 19th August, 1947, in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos.
In 1946, the appellant and his two employ ees were tried before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Guntur in respect of offences under the Motor Spirit Ration ing Order, 1941, and were companyvicted in each of the cases on the 18th July, 1946.
This was companyfirmed in revision by the High Court at Madras on the 19th August, 1947.
He is a Presidency First Class Bench Magistrate at Chirala and manages what has been described as a vast business at several places.
Thereupon, the appellant applied to the Privy Council for special leave which was granted on the 9th July, 1948, limited to the single question whether mens rea is necessary to companystitute an offence under rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules.
552 and 276 at Guntur but is a resident of Chirala, 40 miles away.
14 of 1949.
Both the appellants were jointly charged with having sold salt on 3 days in July, 1943, to three named traders, in each case at a price ex ceeding the maximum price which had been fixed by order of the District Magistrate.
The case was subsequently transferred to the Supreme Court.
Bhimasankaran Durga Bai, with him for the appel lant.
Venkatarayudu and Dadda Pichayya, his employees, were respectively in charge of the aforesaid filling stations.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONAppeal Criminal Appeal No.
March 19.
Ganapathi Iyer, for the respondent.
The appellant is the licensee of two petrol filling stations Nos.
The judgment of the Court was deliv ered by FAZL ALI J. This appeal, which has been preferred after obtaining special leave to appeal from the Privy Council, is companyfined to the single question whether mens rea is neces sary to companystitute an offence under section 81 of the De fence of India Rules.
