ORDER 1. Applicant was convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for contravention of Clause 3 of the M. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, made under section 3 of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or to suffer, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for four months. His appeal against the conviction and the sentence awarded to him was dismissed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. He has now come up in revision. 2. The material facts no longer disputed, which have also been otherwise established by unimpeachable evidence, are these. In the year 1961, Ramprasad and 22 other persons applied for licence to deal in foodgrains. Ramprasad had asked for a licence to transact business in wheat, rice, gram and other foodgrains. The Food Officer recommended all these applications without any exception or qualification when he noted as follows: "Foodgrains licences to the 23 applicants may be sanctioned." Referring to this note "at A", the Collector, who was the licencing authority, passed on 4 July 1961 the following Order: "Approved as proposed at A." This order is significant because clause 6 of the Licensing Order requires that the Collector could refuse to grant or renew a licence only after giving to the applicant an opportunity to be heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing. Admittedly, no opportunity of being heard was afforded to Ramprasad for the obvious reason that there was no question of refusing to grant the licence applied for even in part. It transpired that the word 'gram' was not mentioned in the document which was issued to Ramprasad as licence in Form B. Even so, Ramprasad all the while openly carried on business in gram in such quantities (mentioned in paragraph 2 of the lower appeal Court's judgment) that he could have lawfully so done only if he had obtained a licence for the purpose under clause 4 of the Licensing Order. He faithfully entered all those business transactions in his Foodgrains Stock Register and showed them in his returns which he submitted periodically. 3. The only question for consideration is whether, in the circumstances of this case and on the facts found, the applicant can be said to have carried on business in gram without a licence. He faithfully entered all those business transactions in his Foodgrains Stock Register and showed them in his returns which he submitted periodically. 3. The only question for consideration is whether, in the circumstances of this case and on the facts found, the applicant can be said to have carried on business in gram without a licence. In view of the order passed by the licensing authority on 4 July 1961 on the relevant file, as shown in paragraph 2 above, he must be taken to have decided to grant to Ramprasad a licence to deal in all the foodgrains, including gram, as applied for by him. That being so, the mere omission to mention in the document issued to Ramprasad as licence in Form B the word 'gram', which in the circumstances should be regarded as inadvertent, cannot relegate him to the position of one who was dealing in gram without any licence. In my opinion, in such cases, the grant of licence is, in essence, constituted by the approval accorded and expressed by the licensing authority on the departmental file and the document issued as licence is merely evidence of such grant. That being so, it should be held that Ramprasad did obtain a licence to deal in gram. 4. The ultimate result will not be different even if the matter is considered from a somewhat different point of view. Mens rea or guilty mind is an ingredient of the offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Nathulal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1965 JLJ 967= AIR 1966 SC 43 . The existence of such a slate of mind may be disproved by showing that the person concerned had an honest belief in the existence of facts, which, if they really existed, would have made the act an innocent one (Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 10, page 283). In the present case, since no notice was issued to Ramprasad to afford to him an opportunity of being heard as required by Clause 6 of the Licensing Order, he was not unjustified in believing that a licence as applied for had been given to him. That explains why he openly transacted business in gram also and made that fan known to the authorities concerned by making appropriate entries in his Foodgrains Stock Register and in the periodical returns sent by him. That explains why he openly transacted business in gram also and made that fan known to the authorities concerned by making appropriate entries in his Foodgrains Stock Register and in the periodical returns sent by him. If Ramprasad did or could not read the licence in Form B, that is not necessarily inconsistent with his honest belief in the fact that a licence to carry on business in gram also had been granted to him. This belief appears to have received reinforcement from the fact that Food Inspectors, who checked his licence in Form B, his Stock Register and the foodgrains in stock, did not for long correct his erroneous belief. My attention has been drawn to Ex. P-14, a writing obtained from Ramprasad on 14 July 1964. Ramprasad explained that he wrote it out as dictated by the Food Officer on his assurance that no action would be taken against him in the matter. Even otherwise, there is nothing in that document which militates against the entertainment of an honest belief in the existence of the grant of licence to deal in gram. He has therein stated that he received the licence in Form B on 17 July 1961, that he did not understand that it was necessary to enter gram also in that document and that that word was omitted by mistake. He did not state that he read it on 17 July 1961 when he received it. Giving his reaction to the omission subsequently brought to his notice, he disclosed that he had not known that the names of the foodgrains were required to be entered in that document and that, now that he knew about it, all that he could say was that the omission of the word 'gram' from that document was a mistake. In my opinion, Ramprasad had, in the circumstances of this case, an honest belief in the fact that he was given a licence to deal in gram also and that, when he transacted business in that commodity, he did not have the guilty mind of dealing in it with knowledge that he had no licence. He is, therefore, not guilty of contravention of Clause 3 of the Licensing Order. 5. The result is that the revision succeeds and is allowed. The conviction of Ramprasad and the sentence awarded to him are set aside and he is acquitted. He is, therefore, not guilty of contravention of Clause 3 of the Licensing Order. 5. The result is that the revision succeeds and is allowed. The conviction of Ramprasad and the sentence awarded to him are set aside and he is acquitted. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.