State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Singh

(1989) 3 SCC 596

Facts of the Case:

• This matter arose out of two criminal appeals with nearly identical circumstances.
• Both cases involved lorry drivers and their helpers transporting fertilizer bags from Indore (Madhya Pradesh) towards Maharashtra without obtaining the mandatory export permit.
• The vehicles were intercepted by authorities at the Sendhwa Sales Tax barrier, located about 8 miles before the Maharashtra border on the Agra–Bombay highway, on separate dates.
• The drivers possessed invoices and related records for the fertilizer, but not the legally required permit under the Fertilizers (Movement Control) Order, 1973, which had been issued under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
• At trial, both sets of accused were acquitted on the ground that there was insufficient evidence. The High Court also refused to grant leave to appeal.
• Since the lorries had not yet crossed the border, the legal question arose whether their act amounted only to preparation or had reached the stage of attempt.

Issues:

1. Did the lorry drivers have knowledge of what was inside their vehicles?
2. Was their conduct still at the stage of preparation, or had it advanced to the stage of an attempt to export without a permit?
3. Was there any requirement of mens rea (criminal intent) to hold them liable?
4. Is intention an essential ingredient for offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?
5. Are the respondents guilty of violating the Fertilizers (Movement Control) Order, 1973 read with the provisions of the EC Act?

Arguments:

Defense Side:

• The respondents claimed they were unaware of the exact nature of the goods being transported.
• They argued they were not involved in any illegal “export” of fertilizers, and even if they were, the act was at best mere preparation, not an “attempt,” since the goods had not crossed into Maharashtra.
• Mere preparation, they contended, does not constitute a criminal offence.

Opinion of the Court:

• The Supreme Court examined whether the accused were only preparing or had actually attempted the offence. It laid down that an offence typically passes through four stages: (i) Intention, (ii) Preparation, (iii) Attempt, and (iv) Completion/Execution.
• The Court held that in these cases, the acts had crossed the stage of preparation. The lorries were loaded, documents were in hand, and they were just 8 miles from the border, clearly indicating an attempt to export fertilizers without permit.
• As per Section 3 and Section 7 of the EC Act, anyone exporting fertilizers in contravention of the Fertilizers Order is punishable, whether done knowingly or otherwise.
• The Court reviewed earlier precedents:
  • Swastik Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat – where it was held that intention is not an essential requirement for liability under the EC Act.
  • Nathu Lal v. State of M.P. – where initially intention was considered necessary under Section 7. After that ruling, the legislature amended Section 7 in 1967, inserting the words “knowingly, intentionally or otherwise”, thereby imposing strict liability. Later, through the 1974 Amendment, those words were deleted, and Section 10(1) was changed to presume a culpable mental state, leaving it to the accused to prove absence of intention.
• Based on this framework, the Court reasoned that intention was not a prerequisite, and the law presumed culpable mental state unless the accused proved otherwise.
• The Court found that the drivers were not transporting the fertilizer “for fun or amusement.” Their conduct showed no likelihood of returning the goods to Indore, reinforcing the conclusion that this was an attempt to illegally export.

Judgement:

• The Supreme Court set aside the acquittals recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, declaring them erroneous and unsustainable.
• The respondents were held guilty of contravening the Fertilizers (Movement Control) Order, 1973, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act, 1955.
• However, given that more than 15 years had passed since their acquittal, the Court refrained from imposing any punishment. Instead, the judgment was aimed at clarifying the correct interpretation of law on this point.