JUDGMENT Derbyshire, C.J. - The Appellants are Monotosh Kumar Mitra and Naresh Chandra Guha. Their appeals are against convictions recorded against them by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under r. 47 of the Defence of India Rules, the sentence in each case being nine months' rigorous imprisonment. Rule 47 (2) (b) provides: No person shall use or have in his possession any forged or altered official document, or any document, so nearly resembling an official document as to be calculated to deceive. In sub-r. (1) "official document" includes any passport, pass, permit, certificate, licence, notice or other documents issued by or under the authority of any Government or any officer of His Majesty's forces or any police officer. 2. The circumstances are these. In the year 1943, petrol was rationed in Calcutta. The owners of motor cars were allotted a certain ration and given permission to buy that ration through coupons issued by the Area Rationing Authority. The system under which this was done was that the owner of the motor car applied to the Area Rationing Authority for an allowance of petrol for his car for the month. That application was considered by the rationing authority and, if granted, a number of coupons were issued to the applicant, to permit the applicant to draw his ration. The number of coupons allowed was entered in the registration book of the motor car for which the allowance was given. At the same time a permit book was given to the owner of the car and when he desired to draw any part of his petrol allowance the car had to be taken to the petrol supply depot, the price and the number of coupons for the amount desired handed over, the petrol put into the tank of the car; the supplier of the petrol was under an obligation to enter up in the permit book which the owner or driver took to the supply depot, the number of gallons supplied and the serial letters and numbers of the coupons which had been surrendered by the owner, when he received the petrol. The coupons were printed on a specially prepared and marked Government paper and marked with a letter and also a serial number. There was also impressed on such coupon a rubber stamp mark to show that it had been issued by the Area Rationing Authority. The coupons were printed on a specially prepared and marked Government paper and marked with a letter and also a serial number. There was also impressed on such coupon a rubber stamp mark to show that it had been issued by the Area Rationing Authority. Another stamp mark was made on each coupon to indicate the months for which it was available. 3. Early in the year 1943, a stock of these petrol coupons was in store in the Secretariat, and some of them wore stolen. The theft itself was not discovered until July, 1943, and then a count was made to find out which coupons had been stolen. That count took a considerable time, and a final ascertainment of the quantity of, and the serial letters and numbers of the stolen coupons was not made up until November. In November, lists of the stolen coupons were circulated to the wholesale petrol suppliers in Calcutta. The wholesale petrol suppliers supplied petrol to various petrol depots according to demand, and the owner of the petrol depot was required to hand over to the wholesale suppliers a number of used coupons equivalent to the quantity of petrol supplied. In this particular instance, the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. of Calcutta were the wholesale suppliers, and on searching amongst the coupons they had received from the depots they supplied they found that for the months of May and June, 1943, nineteen stolen coupons had been sent in by the Central Calcutta Motor Stores, Wellesley Street, Calcutta. This petrol pump station is owned by the Appellant, Monotosh Kumar Mitra. Monotosh spends some of his time at the station, but employs assistants, one of whom is Naresh Chandra Guha. 4. An examination of the nineteen coupons received from the Appellant's pump station was made and certain facts emerged. We are only concerned with two particular coupons. One is Coupon No. D/3, 682259 for four units. The other is Coupon No. D/3, 682262 for four units. Both of them are ordinary coupons, that is to say, they were issued in respect of what is called the basic ration allowed for a car, and not in respect of the supplementary ration. These two coupons were examined by an official from the Area Rationing Authority's office and he has given evidence that those two coupons were never issued by the office of the Area Rationing Authority. These two coupons were examined by an official from the Area Rationing Authority's office and he has given evidence that those two coupons were never issued by the office of the Area Rationing Authority. The two coupons bear on their face the impress of a rubber stamp which is circular in shape and about two inches in diameter. That stamp bears the words "Ationing Authority," the letter R being missing, and also "valid as a supplementary issue" and "G.O. No. 4534 Com. D/27-7-42, Calcutta." There are also the words "May" and "June" impressed with a rubber stamp on the face of each of the coupons. On the back of each coupon are the words: This coupon is issued subject to the conditions that this book is produced at the time of supply and that the coupon is then detached therefrom. Motor spirit must only be supplied at the time of its purchase and against the surrender at the time of coupons which are then valid. The following particulars shall be filled in by the dealer or supplier. 5. Underneath are the words "Name and address of dealer or supplier." Then there is a space and in the space are stamped the words: "Calcutta Motor Stores, 88/1, Wellesley Street, Calcutta." Underneath that are printed the words: "Registration mark (or other identifying mark) of vehicle to which supplied." Opposite these words is a figure 4 in ink, and below that the printed word "Date" against which appears a stamp" May 27th, 1943." Across the back of the coupon is stamped "The Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Limited." 6. Those two coupons, as I have said, were amongst the nineteen which came from Monotosh's petrol pump station. Those two coupons were examined by an expert of the Government of Bengal who had experience in stamps and printed documents. He compared the circular rubber stamp mark impressed on the face of those coupons with that of other coupons issued by the Rationing Authority and he came to the conclusion that the stamp was a counterfeit of the real stamp of the Rationing Authority; in particular, the letter R was missing and that there were several other features in which the stamp, although similar generally to the genuine stamp, differed from it. He also came to the conclusion that the words "May" and "June" stamped on the front of the two coupons were different from the words "May" and "June" which had been stamped on other coupons issued by the Rationing Authority for those two months. 7. We have had the opportunity of seeing the coupons and comparing the stamp marks on them just mentioned with those on other coupons issued by the Rationing Authority at the same time. Our examination certainly supports the evidence or the Stamp Expert. The stamp expert further stated that the stamped words "Central Calcutta Motor Stores, 88/1, Wellesley Street," were the same as those which appeared on other coupons about whose genuineness there was no doubt which had come in from Monotosh's petrol pump. 8. There appears to be no doubt whatever that the two coupons in question have been stamped on their face with a counterfeit stamp and that they were never issued by the Rationing Authority. The only inference from that is that these coupons after being stolen were stamped with this counterfeit stamp and used by someone to get a supply of petrol from the petrol store of the Appellant Monotosh. Whoever put that counterfeit stamp on undoubtedly forged, in the legal sense, those petrol coupons. Without a proper stamp those coupons were valueless; with the stamp they were valuable documents. The stamp mark was put on by a counterfeit stamp and that made the coupons forged documents. The two coupons, however, had other marks on them which are of very great importance. In the left-hand top corner of the coupon D/3, 682259 had been written in ink "BLT 135" and on the top left-hand corner of the other coupon D/3, 682262 had been written "BLT 327." In other coupons which had been forwarded by Monotosh's pump to the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. there has been a practice of writing in the left-hand top corner the registered letter and number of the car to which petrol has been delivered. For instance, there is another coupon about which no charge is made--No. D/3, 682264 which is marked "BLT 557." "BLT" stands for Bengal Taxi. Taxi cabs in Calcutta are registered under the letters BLT. there has been a practice of writing in the left-hand top corner the registered letter and number of the car to which petrol has been delivered. For instance, there is another coupon about which no charge is made--No. D/3, 682264 which is marked "BLT 557." "BLT" stands for Bengal Taxi. Taxi cabs in Calcutta are registered under the letters BLT. There is no doubt that the letters BLT with the numbers 135 and 327 behind them are intended to indicate the taxis which are registered as BLT 135 and BLT 327. 9. Expert handwriting evidence has been called to show that the writing BLT 135, BLT 327 and BLT 557 is that of Naresh Chandra Guha. That has been shown by a comparison of the writing in question with signatures given by Naresh Chandra Guha. On other coupons which have come from the same pump there are in the left-hand top corner the registration letters and numbers of other motor cars written in the handwriting of Monotosh Mitra, but in no case has the handwriting of Monotosh been found on any coupon which has been forged. The registration mark of the vehicle should be recorded on the back of the coupons but the invariable practice of coupons coming from this pump station has been to record the registration marks on the left-hand top corner of the face of the coupon. 10. The owner of taxi cab No. BLT 135 was called to give evidence. He produced his registration book in which were entered the serial letter and numbers of the coupons issued to him for the month of May, 1943. That entry was made by the Rationing Authority when the coupons were allotted to the owner of the taxi BLT 135. There is no mention there of coupon No. D/3, 682259. The owner of BLT 135 also produced his permit book which records for the month of May the amount of petrol that he drew, and the coupons that were surrendered against that petrol. Those entries in the permit book should be made by the person who supplies the petrol. The entries which were in the book do not show the supply of four units of petrol covered by coupon No. D/3, 682259. They show other amounts of petrol supplied against other coupons which correspond with the coupons issued and recorded in the registration book. 11. The entries which were in the book do not show the supply of four units of petrol covered by coupon No. D/3, 682259. They show other amounts of petrol supplied against other coupons which correspond with the coupons issued and recorded in the registration book. 11. The owner of BLT 327 has given evidence. He has produced his registration book in respect of that car which shows that no such coupon as No. D/3 682262 was issued to him for the month of May. He has produced also his permit book which shows that no petrol was drawn by him in May against coupon No. 682262. 12. As I have said, both these coupons are stamped May 27th. 1943, by the Central Calcutta Motor Stores, Monotosh's firm, and were sent by them to the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. It is quite clear that petrol has been supplied against those two coupons to some person or persons neither of whom was the owner of either of the two cars mentioned on the face of the two coupons and those two coupons were originally stolen and later forged, though they look like genuine documents. 13. I mentioned a little before that coupon No. 682264 with a stamp on the back May 27th, 1943, is marked, again in the handwriting of Naresh Chandra Guha, BLT 557. The owner of BLT 557 has been called and he has produced his registration book which shows that in the month of May no such coupon as No. D/5 682264 was issued to him. That coupon is similar as regards the stamping to the two coupons previously mentioned. 14. That is the evidence against the two Appellants. When the two Appellants were charged they were given an opportunity to explain the matter under sec. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Monotosh said: I never knew and do not still know whether the coupons in question were forged coupons. I do not know how on the coupons came to be written the numbers of vehicles which the prosecution witnesses say never took petrols from those pumps. I am the sole proprietor of the pump. I do not always remain there. Accused Naresh is the Manager. Naresh Chandra Guha said: We always wrote on the coupons the numbers of the vehicles which came to take petrol at our pump. The witnesses have given false evidence. I am the sole proprietor of the pump. I do not always remain there. Accused Naresh is the Manager. Naresh Chandra Guha said: We always wrote on the coupons the numbers of the vehicles which came to take petrol at our pump. The witnesses have given false evidence. I had no idea they were forged coupons. We had no means of knowing whether they were genuine or forged. 15. The Chief Presidency Magistrate on that evidence came to the conclusion that each of the Appellants committed an offence under r. 47 (2) (b) in respect of the two coupons first-mentioned. On the evidence it is clear beyond all doubt that the two coupons Nos. D/3 682259 and D/3 682262 were part of a number of coupons stolen from the Area Rationing Authority's premises in May, 1943. It is clear too, upon an examination of the two coupons, that a counterfeit stamp was put on them and that they were thereby forged and made to look like genuine valid coupons on which to obtain petrol. It is clear to me that those two coupons were received by Naresh at the petrol pump of Monotosh and it is clear too that they were afterwards used by Monotosh to obtain further supplies of petrol from the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. It is clear too that neither of these two coupons was surrendered in respect of the car whose number Naresh wrote on them. Petrol was supplied to some other persons than the owners of those two cars BLT 135 and BLT 327 under those coupons. 16. As regards Naresh, to my mind, it is clear that he knew that those two coupons were not genuine and valid coupons. He must have known that or he would not have put BLT 135 on coupon No. D/3 682259 without entering four gallons supplied in the permit book of BLT 135. The same applies in respect of coupon No. 682262 and the permit book of BLT 327. In my view, Naresh had, beyond all question, a guilty mind and was properly convicted. 17. As regards Monotosh, it has been urged that it has not been shown that he had anything to do with the two forged coupons and that he acted innocently throughout. In my view, Naresh had, beyond all question, a guilty mind and was properly convicted. 17. As regards Monotosh, it has been urged that it has not been shown that he had anything to do with the two forged coupons and that he acted innocently throughout. There is certainly no proof that he had a guilty knowledge with regard to these coupons, but unquestionably his firm used them to get further supplies of petrol from the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. It has been urged that unless Monotosh had a guilty knowledge or mens rea he cannot be convicted. Rule 47 (2) (b) of the Defence of India Rules provides that no person shall use or have in his possession any forged or altered official document or any document so nearly resembling an official document as to be calculated to deceive. The section does not provide that it shall be an offence knowingly to use or have in one's possession a forged or altered official document, etc. It provides that using or having it in one's possession shall be an offence. It was contended on behalf of Monotosh that the word "knowingly" must be read into the statute on the principle that unless there is mens rea or guilty knowledge no offence is committed. That may be the rule with regard to the general criminal law of the country. But this is a special emergency legislation to deal with unusual and serious evils that have arisen in war time. Black marketing of petrol in Calcutta for a few years past has been notorious. To stop that, amongst other evils arising out of the War, this war-time legislation has been passed. 18. I think it useful at this point to consider a somewhat similar case which arose in England in 1918. It is the case of Pearks' Dairies Lim. v. Tottemham Food Committee [1919] 88 L.J.K.B. 623. There the Appellants, Pearks Dairies had various shops in which they sold margarine. Under the Margarine (Maximum Prices) Order, 1917, it was provided in Regulation 3 that maximum price of margarine should be at the rate of 1 s. per pound; and in Regulation 6 that no person should sell or offer or expose for sale or buy or agree to buy margarine at a price exceeding the price applicable under the Order. 19. 19. On February 22nd, 1918, a customer entered one of the branch shops of the Appellants in Tottemham and asked an assistant employed by the Appellants for 1 lb. of margarine at 1 s. a lb. The assistant weighed the margarine without intending to deliver any other quantity than 1 lb. but through haste, and in error, delivered to the purchaser only 14 ozs. for which the purchaser paid 1 s. the maximum price under the Order. General instructions had been given by the employers to their assistants to charge no more than the authorised prices for controlled goods and to weigh accurately all goods sold by weight. The Appellants, Pearks' Dairies were prosecuted under the Margarine (Maximum Prices) Order and were convicted by the Magistrate and fined 25 together with 5 5 s. costs. 20. A case was stated to the Court of King's Bench Division as to whether the Justices came to a correct determination in point of law. It was contended amongst other things that the Order creating the offence omitted the word "knowingly" and that mens rea or guilty knowledge was necessary and that there was no intention on the part of the assistant to commit the offence and consequently, no offence was committed. The Court consisted of Darling, J., Lord Coleridge, J. and Shearman, J. Darling, J., in his judgment said: A number of cases have been cited to us, and a great argument has taken place as to whether guilty knowledge on the part of the Appellants is necessary. It would be impossible to uphold this conviction if guilty knowledge were necessary, because the Appellants had no knowledge at all in the matter. We held quite recently in Buckingham v. Duck 88 L.J.K.B. 375 (1919) that a guilty knowledge in the particular person proceeded against the master, is not necessary in many cases, and in arriving at that conclusion, we merely acted in accordance with a long line of decisions that have been given in this Court on several Acts of Parliament. We held quite recently in Buckingham v. Duck 88 L.J.K.B. 375 (1919) that a guilty knowledge in the particular person proceeded against the master, is not necessary in many cases, and in arriving at that conclusion, we merely acted in accordance with a long line of decisions that have been given in this Court on several Acts of Parliament. In that case the servant intended to do what was dishonest-- he was selling less than the measure of milk demanded in order to retain for himself a certain amount which he would then dispose of for his own profit; but there is no suggestion of that kind here, so that that case does not very much help us with regard to this one. I think that the proper way to look at this case is to remember that the Order with regard to milk--the one we were construing in Buckingham v. Duck 88 L.J.K.B. 375 (1919)--and the one we have to construe now are not at all on a par with the legislation in the cases which have been cited by Counsel for the Appellants. I quite agree that if this Order had to be looked upon as a statute passed by the Legislature in accordance with the rules such as they were stated by Stephen, J., in Reg v. Tolson 23 Q.B.D. 168 (1889) then we might have to arrive at a different conclusion. But I regard this legislation as special and exceptional. It forbids the doing of certain things and it does what is quite now and unaccustomed, with regard to the legislation of this country. Because we are at war it gives to the Food Controller power to act practically as a dictator. It gives him power to do that which is against the whole spirit of English commercial life-- power to fix a maximum prices--to say you shall neither buy above that price, nor sell above that price, the reason being that these are not times of peace, they are times of war, and the ordinary course of dealing which is called 'higgling of the market', cannot be allowed to go on, because, if it the allowed, rich people would get more than they ought to have, and there would not be an orderly distribution of the common stock among the bulk of the people. Looking at it in that way, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to say that these rules must be observed to the letter and that we do not need to enquire whether there was guilty knowledge or not; they simply have to be observed. Like the rules of many games you must keep the rule not because it would be wrong to break it, not because you would have a guilty knowledge if you broke it, but because it is not playing the game. 21. The learned Judge then read Regulation 6 and continued. It does not say that the person shall not sell margarine knowing that it is above the price. It does not say that he shall not supply a less quantity, knowing that it is a less quantity. It does not say anything about acting bona fide or not--it simply says he shall not do it. The effect of what the Appellant's servant did was that the Appellants have done it; and because we are at war and because the ordinary rules regarding commercial life in this country have to my mind, been suspended and the ordinary mode of construing statutes relating to food has been suspended, I think that this offence has been committed, but I do not at all agree with what the Justices proceeded to do afterwards. They found that the assistant acted in the hurry of serving a lot of customers; yet they did not fine her. She was also proceeded against tout they did not line her who, if any wrong had been done, even unwittingly done bad done it. They dismissed the charge against her but with regard to her employers, who were perfectly innocent according to the case which they themselves stated, they fined them 25 and 5 5s. costs. It seems to me that that was not the way to deal with it at all, but this Court cannot interfere--the Justices acted within their jurisdiction. 22. Lord Coleridge, J. and Shearman, J., gave judgment to the same effect. 23. Rule 47 (2) (b) is special emergency legislation intended to check evils arising through war conditions. It is a prohibitory provision of law similar to that in Pearks' case [1919] 88 L.J.K.B. 623. 22. Lord Coleridge, J. and Shearman, J., gave judgment to the same effect. 23. Rule 47 (2) (b) is special emergency legislation intended to check evils arising through war conditions. It is a prohibitory provision of law similar to that in Pearks' case [1919] 88 L.J.K.B. 623. Guilty knowledge is not necessary to the commission of the offence, but absence of it is a matter to be taken into account in deciding upon the sentence to be imposed. These coupons were unquestionably forged coupons. They were forged official documents or documents so nearly resembling official documents as to be calculated to deceive within the meaning of r. 47 of the Defence of India Rules. Sub-sec. (2) (b) of r. 47 forbids the using or having in possession such documents and sub-sec. (3) makes it an offence to contravene sub-sec. (2) (b). 24. Monotosh certainly used those documents in order to get another supply of petrol and consequently profited thereby. In my opinion he broke the provisions of r. 47 (2) (b) and he must be convicted. However, having regard to the fact that it is not shown that he had any personal guilty knowledge in the matter, I am of the opinion that this is not a case in which a sentence of imprisonment should be imposed upon Monotosh. In my view a fine would be the proper punishment for this breach of the rule. 25. The result is that the appeal of Naresh Chandra Guha is dismissed. We direct that he be called upon to surrender forthwith to his bail to serve out the remainder of the sentence imposed upon him. The appeal of Monotosh Kumar Mitra is allowed as regards sentence only. The sentence of imprisonment passed upon him is set aside and Monotosh is fined a sum of Rs. 100 in default two months' rigorous imprisonment. Lodge, J. I agree.