Panchapagesa Sastry, J.
1. The petitioner seeks to revise the conviction under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. It has been found that he sold rice to three customers to whom he issued receipts. The complaint against him is based on the fact that the addresses of the persons were not noted, though the names were given and also that the licence number of his shop was not found in the counterfoil kept by him. These facts are now admitted. The question is whether an offence is made out Both the lower Courts have held that these facts disclosed an offence, and the first Court sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 250 on each count. The appellate Court however reduced the fine to Rs. 100 in each case.
2. In revision it is contended that the offences are very technical. I agree, but the more serious contention is that there is no proof of mens rea on the part of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Bholaprosad v. The King, 53 C. W. N. 300 : A. I. R. 1949 Cal 348 : 50 Cr. L. J. 690 It may be that this is not a case where an absolute liability is created. Assuming without deciding that proof of mens rea is necessary, I fail to see why it should be held that there is no such proof in this case. What is meant by saying that mens rea should be established is really that it should be proved that the petitioner had a guilty mind in doing the act. If he knew that the law and the conditions of the licence given to him required that he should comply with certain formalities and with that knowledge he deliberately omitted to make in the receipts the necessary entries which were required for checking purposes, he did it consciously knowing that what he was doing was a violation of what the law required. It is certainly proof of mens rea. 3. It is urged by Mr. Nambiar that what is required is proof of some ulterior corrupt motive on the part of the petitioner such as some financial profit for himself or for some persons in whom he was interested, and it is only in such cases that it may be postulated that he had a guilty mind I cannot agree with this contention. It is clear that the petitioner did the act knowing that it was contrary to law, the profit motive or anything analogous to it is not essential. What the law requires is only a conscious violation of the rule and if a person deliberately did a thing with the knowledge that what he was doing was a crime, then it cannot be said that he has not got a guilty mind. I am therefore unable to uphold this contention urged on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Next it is argued that the sentence is excessive. I should agree that Rs. 250 for each count would have been excessive. That is why the Appellate Magistrate has reduced it to Rs. 100. I do not see any need to interfere with his discretion.
5. The petition is dismissed.