Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Relevant paras 33 and 35 of the judgment are reproduced as under : (Shriram Mutual Fund case [SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund, (2006) 5 SCC 361] , SCC pp. 372-76) "33. This Court in a catena of decisions has held that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations:

(a) Director of Enforcement v. M.C.T.M. Corpn. (P) Ltd. [Director of Enforcement v. M.C.T.M. Corpn. (P) Patna High Court CWJC No.848 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025 Ltd., (1996) 2 SCC 471 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 344] : (SCC pp. 478 & 480-81, paras 8 & 12-13) '8. It is thus the breach of a "civil obligation" which attracts "penalty" under Section 23(1)(a) of the FERA, 1947 and a finding that the delinquent has contravened the provisions of Section 10 of the FERA, 1947 that would immediately attract the levy of "penalty" under Section 23, irrespective of the fact whether the contravention was made by the defaulter with any "guilty intention" or not. Therefore, unlike in a criminal case, where it is essential for the "prosecution" to establish that the "accused" had the necessary guilty intention or in other words the requisite "mens rea" to commit the alleged offence with which he is charged before recording his conviction, the obligation on the part of the Directorate of Enforcement, in cases of contravention of the provisions of Section 10 of the FERA, would be discharged where it is shown that the "blameworthy conduct" of the delinquent had been established by wilful contravention by him of the provisions of Section 10 of the FERA, 1947. It is the delinquency of the defaulter itself which establishes his "blameworthy" conduct, attracting the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the FERA, 1947 without any further proof of the existence of "mens rea". Even after an adjudication by the authorities and levy of penalty under Section 23(1)(a) of the FERA, 1947, the defaulter can still be tried and punished for the commission of an offence under the penal law, ...

Patna High Court CWJC No.848 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025

13. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view and in our opinion, what applies to "tax delinquency" equally holds good for the "blameworthy" conduct for contravention of the provisions of the FERA, 1947. We, therefore, hold that mens rea (as is understood in criminal law) is not an essential ingredient for holding a delinquent liable to pay penalty under Section 23(1)(a) of the FERA, 1947 for contravention of the provisions of Section 10 of the FERA, 1947 and that penalty is attracted under Section 23(1)(a) as soon as contravention of the statutory obligation contemplated by Section 10(1)(a) is established. The High Court apparently fell in error in treating the "blameworthy conduct"