Srinivas Mall Bairoliya vs Emperor on 28 April, 1947
It is contended on behalf of the respondent that though
ordinarily a person should not be held liable for the crimi-
nal acts of another and no person can be charged with the
commission of an offence unless a particular. intent or
knowledge is found to be. present, mens tea is not of the
essence of the offences with which we are concerned in this
case and the appellant must be held liable for the acts of
his employees. The question raised in this appeal was con-
sidered by the Privy
327
Council in Srinivas Mall Bairolia v. King Emperor(1). In
that case, the appellants before the Privy Council were
convicted under the Defence of India Rules relating to the
control of prices and were sentenced to terms of imprison-
ment. The 1st appellant was acting as Salt Agent for part
of the district of Darbhanga. He had been appointed to this
office by the District Magistrate, and it was his duty to
sell to licensed retail dealers the supplies of salt which
were allocated by the Central Government to his part of
Dharbanga district. The second appellant was employed by
the first appellant and had been entrusted with the duty of
allotting the appropriate quantity of salt to each retail
dealer, and noting on the buyer's licence the quantity which
he had bought and received. By rule 81 (2) of the Defence of
India Rules, the Provincial Governments were empowered to
make orders to provide for controlling the prices at which
articles or things of any description whatsoever might be
sold. The Defence of India Act, 1939, under which the rules
were framed, empowered the Provincial Governments to dele-
gate the exercise of their powers to certain officers, and
the power to provide by order for controlling the prices at
which various articles (among them salt) might be sold, had
been delegated to the District Magistrates. Rule 81 (4) of
the Rules provided for the punishment of persons guilty of
contravening any such orders. 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 1st appellant was also sepa-
rately charged, in respect of the same sales, with having
abetted the 2nd appellant's contravention of the order. The
trial Magistrate acquitted the 1st appellant of the substan-
tive offences but convicted him on the 3 charges of abet-
ting. The Sessions Judge and the High Court in revision
confirmed the convictions. The Privy Council ultimately
upheld the conviction of the appellants on the merits but
with regard to the view taken by the High Court that even if
the first appellant was
(1) I.L.R. 26 Pat. 46.