State of Madhya Pradesh v Narayan Singh and Ors.

Material Facts of the Case:

In this case, two different cases with similar facts have been dealt with together under a
special leave petition.

In both the cases, there was a vehicle carrying fertilisers from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra.
The vehicles were intercepted at Sendhwa Sales Tax Barrier near the border of Maharashtra. The
vehicles were found in possession of invoices and other records but did not have the permit
issued under Fertilisers (Movement Control) Order read with Section 3 and 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act. They were prosecuted for offence of exporting fertilisers to other state without
permit. The accused had agreed to the said facts. The Trial Court and the High Court announced
their acquittal on the grounds that prosecution failed to prove mens rea on the part of the
accused. 

Issues Dealt with in the Case:

1) Whether the prosecution must prove mens rea on the part of the accused for
exporting fertilisers without permit to establish their conviction?

2) Whether the accused were merely involved in preparation for effecting export of
fertilisers to another state without permit and not in an attempt of the same.

Arguments by the parties:

Respondents: 

a) The accused argued that they were not aware of the contents of the documents seized

from them, hence, there was no mens rea involved on their part.
b) And that they were not engaged in transporting fertilisers to other state in conscious

violation of FMC Order as they had not crossed the border which would result only in
preparation and not in attempt of the act. 

Appellant:

a) They argued that the accused were involved in transporting of fertilisers because the
laws also provide for unintentional export to other states which means that mens rea is

not an essential requirement to establish conviction. 

a) They also argued that the accused had attempted transporting of fertilisers to

Maharashtra without permit because had it not been for the checking at the Sendhwa
point, the fertilisers would have reached Maharashtra, hence, it was not just mere

preparation.

Opinion of the Court:

Regarding the first issue, the Court held that it would presume the existence of mental
element as provided under Section 10 of the act but it would be on defence to rebut
such existence and that too beyond reasonable doubt.

Considering the second issue, the Court held that the commission of an offence includes 4 stages-
intention, preparation, attempt and execution, of which the latter two are punishable. It held that
in this case, the vehicles were intercepted at a barrier which was short of 8 miles only from the
border of Maharashtra. Had they not been stopped at that point, they would have crossed the
border and attempted the offence. 

The clause 3 of FMC Order also prohibits attempt to export.

Judgement:

a) The Court held that the Trial Court and the High Court were wrong in acquitting the
accused, hence, held their verdicts unsustainable.

b) The accused were convicted of the crime of exporting fertilisers to other state without
permit. However, no punishment was awarded to them.