JUDGMENT Anwar Ahmad, J. Ramautar Purbey, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners. Nos. 2 to 6, was convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and also to pay a fine of one thousand rupees, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. During the pendency of the appeal which had been preferred by him, Ramautar Purbey died on the 3rd of June, 1969, but as the appeal involved payment of fine, it was heard on merits. The appeal was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence the petitioners have come up to this Court in revision. 3. The case against Ramautar Purbey was that he was found in possession of 300 Maunds of steam coal on the 2nd November, 1963 when the Supply Inspector (P.W.2) visited his shop. The cash memo (Exhibit A/5) and the road permits (Exhibits A/6 to A/9) produced by him did not explain as to how he came in possession of such a large quantity of steam coal. Under section 8 of the Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956, no person other than a dealer is permitted to store or keep coal exceeding 10 maunds in standard weight unless he has obtained permit from the licensing authority, which was not produced by Ramautar purbey. About a year earlier also, on the 21st December, 1962, he was found in possession of 50 to 60 maunds of steam coal without any permission from the authorities. 4. Mr. Birendra Mohan Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioners raised two points in support of the application. Firstly, the mens rea was an essential ingredient of all criminal offences whether under the Indian Penal Code or any other Act. This point came up for consideration before their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Nathulal V. State of Madhya Pradesh and it was held: "Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. Doubtless of a statute may exclude the element of mens rea, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in English and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. Doubtless of a statute may exclude the element of mens rea, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in English and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. The mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is by itself not decisive of the question whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated. The nature of the mens rea that would be implied in a statute creating an offence depends on the objection of the Act and the provisions thereof :" On the facts of that case, it was held no mens rea had been proved. Then came the Amendment Act 36 of 1967 by which some of the section of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, were amended. Under sub section (1) of section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the words "whether knowingly, intentionally or otherwise" were inserted. In face of this amendment, it is not correct to submit that as there was no mens rea, Ramautar Purbey could not be convicted under section 7, of the Act. 5. The second submission of the Counsel is also without any substance. The Supply-Inspector (P.W.2) found on the 21st December, 1962, that Ramautar Purbey was in possession of 50 to 60 maunds of coal. On that occasion also he could not explain as to how he came in possession of those steam coals. It is true that no case was started against him for the coal found on the 21st December, 1962, but that goes a great way to show that Ramautar had the evil intent or the mens rea. He not only managed to obtain 50 to 60 maunds of coal about a year earlier but also disposed of the entire coal without any permission from the authorities. When the Supply Inspector (P.W.2) raided his shop on the second occasion (2.11.73) he found Ramautar Purbey in possession of 300 maunds of coal. He not only managed to obtain 50 to 60 maunds of coal about a year earlier but also disposed of the entire coal without any permission from the authorities. When the Supply Inspector (P.W.2) raided his shop on the second occasion (2.11.73) he found Ramautar Purbey in possession of 300 maunds of coal. The explanation given by Ramautar that he had stored the coal for building purposes has been negatived by the courts below. It is thus clear that both in law and on facts Ramautar Purbey had the necessary ingredient of mens rea in accumulating about 300 maunds of coal and was rightly convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. As the ingredient of mens rea can be safely inferred on the facts of this case, the conviction of Ramautar Purbey will hold good in spite of the facts that the occurrence took place on 2.11.63 and the amendment came into force in 1967. 6. On account of the death of Ramautar Purbey the sentence of imprisonment becomes unenforceable but the revision on behalf of his heirs on the point of fine is fully competent vide section 431, Code of Criminal Procedure, and the decisions in Pranab Kumar Mitra V. The State of West Bengal State of Kerala V. Narayani Amma Kamala Devi. 7. On the question of sentence of fine, I think, the ends of Justice will be served if the same is reduced to a sum of Rs 600/-. With this modification in the sentence, the application is dismissed. Application dismissed.