K. C. AGARWAL. J. ( 1 ) THIS revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of the [additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, dated June 5, 1982, upholding the order of the Additional Collector and Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies ). Varanasi, confiscating 69 quintals of khandsari and 54 quintals of Gur. ( 2 ) ON 25th February, 1981, a raid was made of that shop of Mis Shrawan Kumar Dilip Kumar, Visheshwarganj, Varanasi. On verification of the stock, 2 Kattas of were found in excess of the Stock Register Secondly the licence of Khandsari bad although been suspended vide order dated 31st October, 1980 on account of certain irregularities and had not been restored, even then the applicant was doing business on the same. ( 3 ) ON 2nd March, 1981, a written report was made to the Additional District Magistrate (Civil supplies) on which notice under Section 6b of the Essential Commodities Act was issued to Radhey Lal, the proprietor of the applicant firm. On 14th September, 1981, written statement was filed on behalf of the said firm pleading that the notice was illegal and that the applicant firm had not committed any illegality. There was no shortage in the stock of Gur. With regard to the suspension of the licence, the applicant pleaded that he had moved for the renewal of the licence for the year 1981. ( 4 ) ON 15th April, 1982, the Additional Collector (Civil Supplies), Varanasi, rejected the objection of the applicant holding that there was a difference between the stock found and the entries in the registers. On this finding, 69 quintals of Khandsari and 54 quintals of Gur were confiscated in favour of the State. The District Supply Officer was directed to sell the confiscated goods in the market at the fixed prices and deposit the receipts thereof in the Government Treasury. Against this order, the applicant filed an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge which was transferred to the I Additional Sessions Judge. Varanasi. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi rejected the appeal. Hence, the present revision. Against this order, the applicant filed an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge which was transferred to the I Additional Sessions Judge. Varanasi. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi rejected the appeal. Hence, the present revision. ( 5 ) THE facts found by the Additional Collector and which had neither been disputed before the, Sessions Judge, nor before me, were that before the raid was made on 25-2-1981, the licence of the applicant firm, obtained under U P. Sugar Evam Gur Dealer Licensing Order, 1962, had been suspended on account of the irregularities found in the running of the andhop by the said firm. Clause (3) of the aforesaid Order required every dealer of Khandsari and Gur to obtain a licence. Without such a licence, no one was permitted to deal with any Khandsari or Gur. The licence of the applicant had been suspended and as; a result of the same, the firm had no right to do business in either Gur or Khandsari. The fact of suspension of the licence was known to Radhey Lal, Proprietor of the applicant firm. He could not carry out the business without licence of which he had full and complete knowledge. As a result of suspension of the licence the applicant was deprived of the exercise of his right to do business. The applicant pleaded before the Additional Collector that since he had applied for the renewal of the licence, he should not be held guilty of running the business without the licence. The submission was rightly not accepted by either the Additional Collector or by the Sessions Judge. A licence could be renewed under the V. P. Khandsari and Gur Control Order provided that it was alive on the date of making of the application. By the suspension of the licence temporarily, the licence got extinguished. The applicant could not legally apply for the renewal which was dead. The objection and the affidavit filed by the applicant before the Additional Collector clearly admitted that the applicant had received information of the suspension of licence. But he did not prefer any legal remedy against the same. The learned counsel for the applicant emphasised before me that as the deposit of licence fee had been made on 3-12-1980, the suspension should be deemed to have been automatically, come to and end. The submission is untenable. But he did not prefer any legal remedy against the same. The learned counsel for the applicant emphasised before me that as the deposit of licence fee had been made on 3-12-1980, the suspension should be deemed to have been automatically, come to and end. The submission is untenable. Mere deposit of licence fee on 3-12-1980 could not mean that the suspension order was revoked Accordingly, the applicant firm could not do the business on the basis of suspended licence. Therefore, he did commit breach of the V. P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962. ( 6 ) ANOTHER ground for confiscation in the note mentioned under Section 68 was about the excess of two Kauas of Gur. The learned Sessions Judge has found that in fact the two Kauas of Gur did not exist and this ground given in the note under Section 68 was not in existence. Be that as it may, this finding could not make any difference because there was a breach of UP. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962 and for this reason, the confiscation could be maintained. ( 7 ) SRI N. L. Ganguli, learned counsel urged that since for passing an order of confiscation under Section 6a mens rea was relevant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the Additional Collector (Civil Supplies) made an error in confiscation without giving the finding for the same. For this purpose, the learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court reported in Kishori Lal Bhiani v. Additional Collector and District Magistrate Kanpu and Nathu Lal v. State of M. P. The expression mens rea is translated as Tguilty mindt or wicked mind criminal intention or intention to do the act which is made penal by the Statute. It may include also recklessness relating to the circumstances and consequences of an act which comprises the actus reus. ( 8 ) GLANVILLE Williams in his book on Text Book of Criminal Law, 1928 Edn, has dealt with this Question at page 122 by saying: On most matters the evidential burden rests on the prosecution. So the prosecution must give evidence of the doing of the physical act, of any consequence necessary for the crime, and of the mental state required. So the prosecution must give evidence of the doing of the physical act, of any consequence necessary for the crime, and of the mental state required. The prosecution can discharge the burden by giving circumstantial evidence, and they Can also rely on some rules of law, like the one relating to stolen goods already explained. ( 9 ) THE facts found established were that the applicant firm knew that the licence was required for doing business in Khandsari and Gur and it can be presumed to know by the suspension of such a licence, the right to do the business is suspended still the applicant firm was found doing business on the day of which raid was made, The aforesaid facts establish beyond any shadow of doubt that Radhey Lal, the Proprietor of the applicant firm in doing business had contravened Clause (3) of U. P. Khandsari and Gur Control Order, 1962. This established that he had the guilty mind. ( 10 ) THE last question that remains to be decided is about the confiscation. The learned counsel urged that in the circumstances of the present case, the Additional Collector (Civil Supplies) was unjustified and -acted in excess of the power conferred upon him by Section 6a of the Essential Commodities Act in confiscating the entire quantity of Gur and Khandsari found in its shop. The submission is not correct. Under Section 6a the Additional Collector had the power of confiscation of the commodities seized in contravention of an order issued under Section 3 of the said Act. As laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Kamataka v. K. B. Balvakar it is a discretionary power but that does not mean necessarily that he cannot, in the given circumstances of a particular case, direct the confiscation of the entire consignment of an essential commodity in relation to which there is a contravention of any of the orders issued under Section 5 of the Act. The Supreme Court held: It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the confiscation should be of an entire consignment or part of it, depending upon the nature of contravention. From what I have said above, it is established that the applicant had no licence on the date on which raid was organised. His licence had already been cancelled and he was doing business without it. From what I have said above, it is established that the applicant had no licence on the date on which raid was organised. His licence had already been cancelled and he was doing business without it. His appeal preferred against suspension of licence was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner in 1981. In these circumstances, the confiscation of the entire commodity was justified and no inference is called for. ( 11 ) IN the result the revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed .