JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - The applicant who is the occupier of H.R. Sugar Factory, Bareilly was prosecuted along with Rajju Singh, centre incharge, and Chhattarpal Singh, weighment clerk at purchasing centre, Rasuyia for breach of certain rules made by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. All of them were convicted by a Magistrate, First Class and sentences to pay various amounts as fine. 2. On appeal, however, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the convictions of the centre incharge and weighment clerk, but affirmed the conviction of the applicant under Section 22 of the aforesaid Act for breach of Rules 87 and 96 of the aforesaid rules and maintained his sentence of Rs. 500/- as fine on two counts under Rule 96, and on one count under Rule 87 of the Sugarcane Rules. The applicant has now come up in revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant, being an occupier of the factory residing at Bareilly which is at a considerable distance from Rasuyia where the purchasing centre is located, would not have any knowledge of the breach of Rule 96 and, therefore, could not have been convicted for the breach of the aforesaid rule. Learned counsel contends that the weighment clerk and the centre in-charge who were responsible for issuing the Parcha in accordance with Rule 96 and who on prosecution allegations, had not followed the aforesaid rule in performing their duty have been acquitted by the lower appellate court, still the conviction of the applicant, in whose case mens rea is totally absent, has been affirmed which is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel has invited my attention to an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1026 of 1961. Learned counsel has invited my attention to an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1026 of 1961. In that case, following the decisions of the Privy Council in Sriniwas Mall Bairoliya v. Emperor A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 135, a learned single Judge set aside the conviction of the occupier of the `Ganga Sugar Corporation' as recorded for breach of Rule 96 of the rules framed under the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulations of Supply and Purchase) Act on the ground that, as the occupier was not present at the purchasing centre at the time when the alleged wrong weighment was made, he could not be convicted for breach of that rule. In this case also it is not the prosecution case that the applicant was present at the purchasing centre when the wrong Parcha in contravention of Rule 96 was issued to a cultivator by the weighment clerk or that he had and knowledge of the same. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel is on all fours with the present case. 4. If the decision relied upon is accepted as correct, an impossible position does arise. 5. Under Rule 96 a duty is case on the occupier of a factory or a purchasing agent to prepare the Parcha in a correct manner, and its breach is punishable under Section 22 of the Act. No such duty has been cast under the rule on the weighment clerk or the centre incharge who are employees of the factory. Therefore, they cannot be punished under the law; in any case for the breach of this rule, and the order of the lower appellate court acquitting them on that ground is absolutely correct. Now, if the argument of the learned counsel is accepted that unless the prosecution proves that the occupier of a factory was a party to the preparation of an incorrect Parcha, he cannot be convicted for want of mens rea, as has been held in the aforesaid decision, then Rule 96 will, in a large number of cases, be rendered wholly nugatory because it provide for the proper preparation of cane `purcha' at a purchasing centre and casts the responsibility of the same on the occupier of a factory or the purchasing agent. It is a matter of common knowledge that a sugar factory maintains a number of purchasing centres outside the premises of the factory and the occupier does not reside at those purchasing centres. In my opinion, therefore, it could never have been the intention of the legislature that, unless mean rea was established, an occupier was not to be convicted for breach of Rule 96. 6. The offences under the rules framed under the U.P. Sugarcane Act are of a technical nature wherein the presence of the element of mens rea is not necessary for constituting an offence arising out of the breach of those rules. The view of mine finds support from the observations of Bind Basni Prasad J., in the case of Kanhaiya Lal v. Emperor A.I.R. 1948 All. 276. In that case where a person had been punished under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules for breach of Cls. 14 and 15-A of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, the learned Judges after discussing the case of Srinivas Mall A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 135 was pleased to observe that "in the present case, the element of mens rea, is ruled out by the necessary implications of the statutory provisions. The mere possession of cloth manufactured before August 1943, after 31.12.1944, has been made offence by Clause 14 of the order," and held that the presence of mens rea was not necessary to constitute the offence. 7. Offences under the Sugarcane Act are not criminal in any real sense but are acts which, in public interest, are prohibited under a penalty. The question of mens rea in such offences, in my opinion, does not arise. However, as I am bound by the aforesaid decision of the learned single Judge, I have no option but to acquit the applicant and set aside the sentence for breach of Rule 96, as I do not consider it necessary to refer the case to a large Bench for decision. 8. The applicant has also been convicted for having contravened Rule 87. Rule 87 provided that no person shall be employed by an occupier of a factory to do any transaction for the purchase of cane, unless he has been licensed by the Collector of the District in which such transaction takes place. 8. The applicant has also been convicted for having contravened Rule 87. Rule 87 provided that no person shall be employed by an occupier of a factory to do any transaction for the purchase of cane, unless he has been licensed by the Collector of the District in which such transaction takes place. Both the lower courts have held that the applicant had employed a weighment clerk to weigh the sugarcane at the purchasing centre who had not been licensed by the Collector of the district. It cannot be argued that the applicant had no knowledge that weighment clerk Chhattarpal Singh had no licence from the Collector. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, argues that under Rule 81, the applicant could have authorised the weighment clerk to work as such during the pendency of his application for licence before the Collector and, therefore, he should not have been convicted. This argument when raised before the learned Sessions Judge was rightly repelled by him on the ground that there was nothing to indicate that Chhattarpal Singh was working under any certificate granted by the applicant. In my opinion, Rule 81 is totally inapplicable to the facts of the case inasmuch as it deals with a purchasing agent and not with a weighment clerk who is an employee of the factory. I am, therefore satisfied that the conviction and sentence of the applicant as recorded by the trial court for breach of Rule 87 is wholly justified. 9. This revision is allowed in part; the conviction and sentence of the applicant for breach of Rule 96 are set aside. Fine if paid on that account shall be refunded to him. His conviction and sentence for breach of Rule 87 under Section 22 of the Act are, however, affirmed and his revision in that regard is dismissed.