JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This is an appeal u/s 417(1), Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 9-2-1970 of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Puri, in 3(c) C.C. No. 73 of 1967 acquitting the accused (Respondent herein) of the charges under Sections 7(ii) and 9(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The accused was prosecuted on the, allegations that on 20-5-1967 the Inspector of Supplies (p.w. 1) found on inspection and physical verification that there were shortages of Q1. 90 Kgs. of, sugar, 88 kgs. of suji, 18 kgs. of wheat and excess of 5 kgs. of Maida and 4 kgs. of Atta in the shop of the accused 'when compared with the' book balance kept in that shop. The accused was a licensed dealer in essential, commodities having his shop and godown at Laxmi Bazar in the Puri town. On 19-5-1967 at about 7 p.m., p.w. 5, who was the local M.L.A. and the Deputy Speaker of the Orissa Legislative Assembly at that time, received a phone message from somebody to the effect that the accused was selling sugar in the 'black' market and so there was a 'Golmal' between the accused and some customers near his shop. P.w. 5 proceeded to the spot and on hearing some complaints against the accused, p.w. 5 wanted to inspect the relevant registers and the stock position of the controlled commodities in the shop of the accused. The accused voluntarily showed the account books to p.w. 51 who thereafter made a physical verification of the stock of such commodities in that shop and found that the stock in hand of the essential commodities therein did, not tally with the book balance maintained in that shop. So p.w. 5 informed the matter on phone to the Civil Supplies Officer, the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate and to the Officer then in the local police station. When p.w. 5 was inspecting and verifying the registers and the actual stock position in the shop, he found that a few bags of Suji, wheat, and other things were brought by the N.C.C. people to that shop, and the persons in that truck wanted to deliver those articles to the accused. P.w. 5, however, did not allow delivery of those articles to the accused and directed those persons to take those articles to the police station. P.w. 5, however, did not allow delivery of those articles to the accused and directed those persons to take those articles to the police station. As the concerned authorities did not come to the spot at night, p.w. 5 offered Satyagraha and slept in the varandah of that shop throughout the night. The Civil Supplies Officer, the Inspector of Supplies and the Officer-in-charge of the local police station arrived at the shop on 20-5-1967 and verified the stock position of the, essential commodities in that shop. P.w. 1, the Inspector of Supplies weighed the essential commodities in that shop, but could not ascertain the shortage or excess of those articles in the relevant registers had by then been seized by the police. The relevant registers were made available to p.w. 1 on 21-5-1967 on which date he,verified the stock with reference to the registers and found that there was shortage of Q1.90 kgs. of sugar, 18 kgs. of wheat and 88 kgs. of Suji. He further found that there was excess of 51 kgs. of Maida and 4 kgs. of Atta in the shop. He submitted his written report (Ext. 7) to the Civil Supplies Officer to the above effect requesting therein for the cancellation of the licence issued to the accused. Later, on 23-5-1967 p.w. 1 submitted the prosecution report (Ext. 3) against the accused, on which he was prosecuted. 3. The defence put up by the accused is that the shortage of sugar and Suji found by p.w. 1 was due to the fact that the local Civil Supplies Officer had asked the accused on phone to supply the said quantities of the aforesaid commodities to the N.C.C. Administrative Officer (d.w. 1). as he wanted the same in connection with the Zonal N.C.C. camp held at Puri in May, 1967. The Civil Supplies Officer had informed the, accused that the N.C.C. Administrative Officer had applied for the supply of the aforesaid commodities to the Civil Supplies Officer for the aforesaid N.C.C. camp. The said articles were accordingly supplied to the N.C.C. Administrative Officer on the distinct understanding that he Would return equal quantities of those articles to the accused as soon as a permit for the same was obtained be the said officer. The said articles were accordingly supplied to the N.C.C. Administrative Officer on the distinct understanding that he Would return equal quantities of those articles to the accused as soon as a permit for the same was obtained be the said officer. With regard to the shortage and/or excess of the other commodities, namely wheat, Atta, and Maida, the plea of the accused is, that, the calculation and weighment of the stock of those articles as made by p.w. 1 were incorrect and the accounts maintained by him with regard to those commodities were perfectly correct. 4. The Court below on a lengthy and convincing consideration of the evidence on record found that the deficit and excess in respect of wheat, Atta and Maida as found by p.w. 1 as stated above, were very negligible in comparison with the large scale sales and the stock in band in that shop. It has also been found on the evidence on record that the stock in hand of the aforesaid commodities was at to different places in the shop, and p.w. 1, who actually made the weighments, admitted that slight mistakes might have been committed in weighing the stock of the aforesaid articles. P.w. 1 has also stated that in selling articles to different persons shortage of about one kg. in each quintal may be occasioned. The accused-dealer, as admitted by p.w. 1, was dealing in about 200 quintals of wheat per year and at the relevant time he had in stock 14 quintals 54 kgs. of wheat, 3 quintals 53 kgs. of Atta and 1 quintal 1 kg. of Maida at two different places in the shop. Thus the deficit of 18 kgs. of wheat, worked out at 1.25 per cent of the stock, and the excess of 4 kgs. of Atta and 51 kgs. of Maida, worked out at 1 per cent and 5 per cent respectively of the stock in hand may be considered as negligible. Moreover, the accused had in his shop Atta and Maida meant for sale without any ration card as admitted by p.w. 1 So the Court below was justified in arriving at the finding that it has not been established In this case that the accused intentionally or knowingly maintained false or incorrect accounts of Atta, Maida and wheat in his shop. On the above-mentioned facts it is difficult to say beyond reasonable doubt that the deficiency in this respect was caused intentionally and/or with the knowledge of the accused. Accordingly the accused cannot be held guilty in respect of the abovementioned shortage or excess in wheat, Atta and Maida. 5. With regard to the shortage of sugar and Suji, the Court below, on a consideration of the prosecution evidence and the evidence of d.w. 1, the N.C.C. Administrative Officer, and the case put up by the accused in this regard, finds that an offence u/s 7 of the Act is not established as mens rea, which forms an integral part of that offence, has not been established in this case. In this connection the Court below has placed reliance on the evidence of d.w. 1 to the effect that the accused, on the request of d.w. 1 and as directed by the Civil Supplies Officer, supplied sugar and suji and other articles to d.w. 1 as per Ext. C. It finds that the said,supply was made on the direction of the Civil Supplies Officer, who was the licensing authority and the person to issue permit for the supply of the said commodities, and the accused could not disoblige him in this matter. As the shortage of sugar and suji was on the above account, the Court below arrived at the finding that the incorrect entries in the account books with regard to the aforesaid commodities could not be said to have been done by the accused with any guilty intention, know ledge or purpose. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State did not question the aforesaid finding of the Court below relating to the excess or shortage in respect of wheat, Atta and Maida. He also did not urge anything specific regarding the charge u/s 9(i) of the Act. He solely and mainly confined his argument on the shortage of suji and sugar found in that shop. In this connection he submitted that the Court below should not have accepted the evidence of d.w. 1 as the same was not worthy of credence, and that its finding that the shortage if suji and sugar was occasioned due to the supply of the said articles for the N.C.C. camp on the direction of the Civil Supplies Officer was not well founded. It was also urged that the accused 'was liable to be convicted u/s 7(ii) of the Act on the admitted fact that there was shortage of the above-mentioned essential commodities in his shop on the date when his shop was inspected by p.w. 1, and the explanation offered by the accused referring to the Civil Supplies Officer's oral direction would not exonerate him of the guilt specially when he could not show anything concrete from the Civil Supplies Officer's office to that effect. 7. Both Mr. Mohanty and the learned Government Advocate were unanimous in their submission that this case would be governed by the provisions of the Act as it stood before its amendment in December, 1967 by I Act 36 of 1967. That being so, the decisions reported in Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 11166 S.C. 43 and Murarilal Garg Vs. State of Orissa, are squarely applicable to this case. In Nathu lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 11166 S.C. 43, it has been held that an offence u/s 7. of the Act for breach of the provisions of Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers. Licensing Order, 1958, necessarily involves a guilty mind as an ingredient of the offence. It has been held therein that it would be legitimate to hold that an, offence u/s 7 of the Act is committed by a person if he intentionally contravenes any order made u/s 3 of the Act. In the case reported in Murarilal Garg Vs. State of Orissa it has been held that mens rea constitutes an integral part of an offence u/s 7 of the Act. A person, therefore, commits an offence u/s 7 of the Act if he intentionally contravenes any order made u/s 3 of the Act. Thus so long the complained of contravention is, not found to be intentional, the accused cannot be held guilty merely on the fact of contravention. 8. The accused in this case has admitted the shortage of suji and sugar, as found by p.w. 1 on verification of the stock. Thus so long the complained of contravention is, not found to be intentional, the accused cannot be held guilty merely on the fact of contravention. 8. The accused in this case has admitted the shortage of suji and sugar, as found by p.w. 1 on verification of the stock. But the accused has come forward with a definite case that the said shortage was due to the fact that he had to supply equal quantities of the above commodities to d.w. 1, the Administrative Officer of the N.C.C. only three - four days earlier, on the direction of the local Civil Supplie's officer, as stated above. At the relevant time d.w. 1 was also the Administrative Officer of the Zonal N.C.C. camp held at Puri in the month of May, 1967. D.w. 1 has deposed to the effect that about 1600 persons including cadets and officers of the Corps attended the said camp and the camp continued for ten days. He has further testified on oath that the accused was regularly supplying controlled and other commodities to the N.C.C. Organisation at Puri, and that he (d.w. 1) on 15-5-1967 approached the accused for the supply of such commodities for the aforesaid camp and took delivery of various articles of food including the above-mentioned quantities of sugar and suji from the shop of the accused on issuing his letter, Ext. C. He has stated that he had no permit for the supply of those controlled articles but the Civil Supplies Officer had told him to take those articles from the shop of the accused, as he (the Civil Supplies Officer) had verbally directed the accused to supply the said articles to d.w. 1 for the N.C.C. camp and that later on a permit would be issued in favour of d.w. 1 for the aforesaid articles. Later on he obtained a permit for the aforesaid controlled commodities. On 18th or 19th May, 1967 in the evening he took two bags of 'sugar and,one bag of Suji, which he had taken from the accused's shop, to return the Same to the accused. At that time he found that some 'Golmal' was going on near that shop. P.w. 5 has stated that a N.C.C. van came to that shop on the 19th evening with some bags containing sugar, wheat, wheat products and other commodities when he was verifying the stock at that shop. At that time he found that some 'Golmal' was going on near that shop. P.w. 5 has stated that a N.C.C. van came to that shop on the 19th evening with some bags containing sugar, wheat, wheat products and other commodities when he was verifying the stock at that shop. The persons in the said van wanted to deliver those articles to the accused, but p.w. 5 prevented them from doing so. P.w. 5 has himself deposed that the accused at that time stated that he had given those articles to the N.C.C. Organisation on credit, and so he would take back those articles brought in the N.C.C. van. As the said articles were not allowed to be delivered to the accused, the van with those articles went back from that place. Thus the evidence of d.w. 1 that he went with two bags of sugar and one bag of Suji to the shop of the accused on the 19th May, 1967 on a N.C.C. vehicle is Corroborated by p.w. 5. d.w. 1 has also categorically stated in his cross-examination that he had requested the Civil Supplies Officer for the supply of controlled commodities on special permit. D.w. 1 has further stated that he was examined by the Supply staff and also by the Police during investigation of this case, and that at that time he showed the copy of Ext. C to the Supply staff but the said copy of Ext. C was not seized by them. D.w. 1 is a responsible military officer of the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel and at the relevant time he was the Administrative Officer of the N.C.C. Organisation at Puri. There is nothing in the evidence of d.w. 1 from which one can entertain any doubt about his veracity or the reliability of his evidence. From his evidence, it is quite clear that d.w. 1, being in 'charge of organising the N.C.C. camp at Puri, was necessarily interested in obtaining and collecting as quickly as possible food articles for the consumption of the persons attending that camp. His evidence that in that connection he approached the Civil. From his evidence, it is quite clear that d.w. 1, being in 'charge of organising the N.C.C. camp at Puri, was necessarily interested in obtaining and collecting as quickly as possible food articles for the consumption of the persons attending that camp. His evidence that in that connection he approached the Civil. Supplies Officer, who told him to take delivery of such articles from their regular dealer, the accused, who had been directed by him (the Civil Supplies Officer) to supply the same to d.w. 1, appears to be convincing and has not been successfully assailed by the prosecution. It is seen from the evidence of p.w. 5 that ever since the beginning of the trouble, i.e. from the time of verification of the stock by p.w. 5, it is the consistent case of the accused that the N.C.C. people had taken from his shop some essential commodities on credit and the deficit with regard to Suji and sugar was on that account. The above defence taken by the accused from the inception of the trouble was well known to the prosecution and if there was no truth in the same the prosecution should have examined the Civil Supplies Officer to controvert that fact. The accused was regularly supplying food articles to the N.C.C. Organisation and there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of d.w. 1 that he took the above-mentioned controlled articles from the accused as asked by the Civil Supplies Officer. There is also nothing to disbelieve the evidence of d.w. 1 and the accused's plea to the effect that the accused was orally directed by the Civil Supplies Officer to deliver the said articles to d.w. 1. 9. It is urged by the learned Government Advocate that if really the Civil Supplies Officer asked the accused to supply the above-mentioned articles to the N.C.C. Organisation at Puri arid the accused accordingly supplied the above commodities to d.w. 1 as required by him the accused should have mentioned that fact in his account books. He further submitted that the non-disclosure of the alleged supply to the N.C.C and the admitted shortage in the stock position in the shop per se constitute an offence u/s 7 of the Act. In this connection it is urged by Mr. He further submitted that the non-disclosure of the alleged supply to the N.C.C and the admitted shortage in the stock position in the shop per se constitute an offence u/s 7 of the Act. In this connection it is urged by Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, that as the accused had to supply the articles on the direction of the Civil Supplies Officer, though he had not issued a permit to that effect, and as the articles were taken from him by no other person than the Administrative Officer of the local N.C.C. Organisation by issuing Ext. C, he bona fide believed that he would soon get a permit for or get back equal quantities of those commodities from d.w. 1 and so he did not make any entry to that effect in his account books. It is further submitted that as the supply of the commodities was not covered by a written permit but was made on the express oral direction of the Civil Supplies Officer, which could not be disobeyed for obvious reasons, no entry to that effect was or could be made in the account books of the accused's shop. As stated above, there is nothing to disbelieve' the evidence of d.w. 1 and the accused's plea that the supply of the said commodities to the N.C.C. at Puri was made on the oral direction of, the Civil Supplies Officer. That being so, the above explanations for the aforesaid non-disclosure in the account books appear to be reasonable and cannot be lightly brushed aside. 10. On the above findings and considerations the above mentioned shortage in the stock position and the non-disclosure of the supplies to the N.C.C. in the account books, cannot, by themselves, constitute an offence u/s 7 of the Act, as it is difficult to say, on the facts of this case, that they were caused by the accused with a maid fide intention or that the accused had a guilty intention in the mater in question. As mens rea is found wanting in this case the accused on the basis of the law laid down in Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 11166 S.C. 43 and Murarilal Garg Vs. State of Orissa cannot be held guilty u/s 7 of the Act. As mens rea is found wanting in this case the accused on the basis of the law laid down in Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 11166 S.C. 43 and Murarilal Garg Vs. State of Orissa cannot be held guilty u/s 7 of the Act. On the above considerations I do not find any reason to differ from the finding of the Court below that the accused is not guilty of the offence u/s 7(ii) of the Act. 11. As stated above, the learned. Government Advocate did not urge anything to substantiate the charge against the accused u/s 9(i) of the Act. 12. On the above analysis I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed