The State of Assam appeals against the acquittal of the two respondents-Sri Tara Chand Baid under Section 7 (1) and Sri Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla under Section 7/8 of the Essen­tial Commodities Act for having sold fertilisers in contraven­tion of clause 3(3) of the Fertilisers (Control) Order, 1957. 2. The Government of Assam entered into an agreement on 1-12-58 with the Agent M/s. Assam Manure & Tools Supp­lier, Shillong where under the Agent was to take delivery of consignments of fertilisers booked from the Siadri factory and other sources to the District Agriculture Officer concerned and sell the same according to the rates fixed by the Govern­ment on demand by any purchaser for genuine agricultural pur­poses at the following rates which, however, might be subject to modification by Government from time to time : "1. Sulphate of Ammonia® Rs. 377/-per ton. Ex-godown in the area of agency 2. Urea @ 737/- -do- 3. Ammonium Sulphate Ni­trate @ Rs. 447/- -do- 4. Calcium Ammonia Nitra­te @ Rs. 357/- do- 5. Mixed fertilisers @ Rs. do- 6. Single Super phosphate @ Rs. 2321-(16% P40.) -do- The above agreement was for the period from 1st December, 1958 to 31st March, 1961 on remuneration of Rs. 27/-per ton. Jagannath Bauri and Debi Prasad Agarwalla were the proprie­tors of the Agent, M/s. Assam Manure and Tools Suppliers. It was alleged that in collusion with the two respondents, namely, Tara Chand Baid of M/s. Manik Motor Works of Tezpur and Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla alias M.L. Agarwalla of Police Road, Shillong, the proprietors of the Agent sold about 100 tons of sulphate of amiuaia to Bighniri Tea Estate of Darrang at the rate of Rs. 497/- per ton in black market, excluding freight or transport charges, instead of selling the fertilisers to the bonafide agriculturists at the rates fixed in the agreement. The proprietors of the Agent were prosecuted, but were discharged. 3. Sulphate of ammonia was a controlled commodity and therefore, under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957, herein­after referred to as 'the Control Order', the maximum prices were fixed at Rs. 380/- per ton for Agriculturists and at Rs. 420/- per ton for tea and coffee plantation in West Bengal and Assam. The two respondents were, therefore, prosecuted for violation of the Control Order which was punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. 380/- per ton for Agriculturists and at Rs. 420/- per ton for tea and coffee plantation in West Bengal and Assam. The two respondents were, therefore, prosecuted for violation of the Control Order which was punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. The trial Court found that the respondent, M. L. Agarwalla delivered to the Manager of Bagh-mari Tea Estatt 100 tons of fertilisers at the rate of Rs. 497/- per ton inclusive of carriage at the rate of Rs. 150/-per ton; and that M/s. Manik Motor Works received only Rs. 10/- as commission. 4. Before the trial court the respondents took threefold defence, namely, that they had no mens rea, that the Control Order was not in force in Assam at the relevant time, and that M/s. Manik Motor Works were not a dealer for the pur­pose of the Control Order. The trial Court found that pursu­ant to clause 3 of the Control Order, by Notification dated 12.7.57 the Central Government fixed different prices for cultiva­tors and tea planters. The instant sale of fertiliser was during the period from 1.10.59 to 30.11.59 and hence covered by the Control Order. The defence, however, produced a notification published in the Assam Gazette vide No. AGA. 148/60/75 dated 19.7.62 whereby the Government of Assam fixed 1st September, 1962 as the date with effect from which no person could carry on the business of selling fertilisers except under and in accor­dance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted to him under the Control Order. It found that clause 3 prohi­bited sale of fertilisers at a price higher than the fixed price only by a dealer and it is not enforceable against a non-dealer and since the State of Assam prohibited any such sale by a dealer only with effect from 19.7.62, the question of enforce­ment of clause 3 (3) of the Control Order in Assam could not arise before that day. Since it was clause 3(3) that imposed penalty it had to be strictly construed and since the respon­dents were not dealers at the relevant time, the penal provi­sion was not attracted in their case. 5. Since it was clause 3(3) that imposed penalty it had to be strictly construed and since the respon­dents were not dealers at the relevant time, the penal provi­sion was not attracted in their case. 5. As regards the requirement of mens rea, the trial Court found that in the agreement itself there was specific mention of non-control fertiliser also despite the existence of the Central Government notification dated 12.7.57 and that the prosecution failed to prove specifically that the fertilisers delivered by the respondents were from controlled fertilisers and not from non-controlled fertilisers procured from other sources. The trial Court also found that the charge against respondent Tara Chand Baid contained the allegations "knowingly, intentionally or otherwise" and mens rea was an ingredient of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act at the relevant time, but the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against Tara Chand Baid beyond all reasonable doubt. Regarding respondent Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla alias M. L. Agarwalla, the trial Court held that the main charge against Tara Chand Baid under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act having failed, there was no necessity of a separate rinding under Section 8 of that Act against respondent M. L. Agarwalla. The Court found that nowhere the accused was referred to as Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla or even as M. P. Agarwalla and that the prosecution had failed to show that Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla was also known as M. L. Agarwalla. Accordingly it held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of accused M.L. Agarwalla and hence Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla could not be fastened with the liabi­lity of the alleged offence. Both the accused having thus been acquitted, the State appeals. 6. Mr. A.H. Saikia, the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, submits, inter alia, that the prices at which the sulphate of ammonia were sold by the respondents being higher than the prices fixed by the Central Government, the respondents were clearly punishable under Section 7/8 of the Essential Commo­dities Act; that no mens rea was necessary; that the respon­dents were dealers; and that there was no mistaken identity between Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla and M.L. Agarwalla. 7. It is necessary to decide whether the respondents were prosecuted for violation of the agreement or for violation of the Control Order. Admittedly, the agreement fixed the prices of sulphate of ammonia atRs. 7. It is necessary to decide whether the respondents were prosecuted for violation of the agreement or for violation of the Control Order. Admittedly, the agreement fixed the prices of sulphate of ammonia atRs. 377/- per ton ex-godown in the area of agency, urea at the rate of Rs. 737/-per ton, and Ammonium Sul­phate Nitrate at the rate of Rs. 447/-pet ton. This does not include the cost of transport. The Agent was to receive a remu­neration of Rs. 27/-per ton. The carriage was Rs. 150/-, and the commission of M/s. Manik Motor Works was Rs. 10/- These were added to the price fixed under the agreement. Therefore, assuming the fertiliser sold was sulphate of ammonia, the price would be Rs. 377/- plus Rs. 27/-plus Rs. 150/-plus Rs. 10/-which would corae to Rs. 564/-. Even if the commissions are not taken into account, the price would be Rs. 377/-plus Rs. 150/-i.e. Rs. 527/-. The Government fixed the price at Rs. 380/- per ton if sold for agriculturists and Rs. 422/-per ton if sold for use of plantation. The agreement nowhere referred to the prices fixed by the Central Government under the Control Order nor did it put any ceiling as to cost of transport. Under such circums­tances if the respondents charged Rs. 150/- per ton as carriage that would not be violative of the agreement and for that matter would not also be violative of the Control Order. As defined in Section 2(c) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1952, 'Dealer' means a person carrying on the business of selling fertilizers, whether wholesale or retail, and includes an agent or a dealer. From the casual transaction or a solitary instance no presump­tion can be drawn that M/s. Manik Motor Works was a dealer in fertiliser. Before a person can be said to be a dealer of any essential commodity it must be shown that he carries a business of purchase or sale or storage for sale of essential commodity. Therefore, a single casual or solitary transaction would not be sufficient to make it a dealer. This view was taken in M. Subbarao vs. State, AIR 1950 Orissa 27; Murari-lal Garg vs. State, AIR 1956 Orissa 87, Manpur Administration vs. M. Nilachaidra Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1583. In Govt. Medical Store Depot, Gauhati vs. The Spurt of Taves, Gauhiti. Therefore, a single casual or solitary transaction would not be sufficient to make it a dealer. This view was taken in M. Subbarao vs. State, AIR 1950 Orissa 27; Murari-lal Garg vs. State, AIR 1956 Orissa 87, Manpur Administration vs. M. Nilachaidra Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1583. In Govt. Medical Store Depot, Gauhati vs. The Spurt of Taves, Gauhiti. AIR 1985 SC 1748 it was held for the purpose of the Central Sales Tax Act that where the assessee's stand that its transactions were without any profit motive, the trans actions, though satisfying the requirement of volume, fre­quency, continuity and regularity, would not constitute business so as to make a person carrying on such transaction? a dealer. Section 2 (b) of the Central Sales Tax 1st defines 'dealer' to mean any person who carries on business of selling goods and includes a Government which carries on such business. Thus the essential ingredients of dealer in the two definitions are the sa­me, namely, carrying on the business of selling. For the purpose of the Control Order also the requirement of volume, frequency, continuity and regularity have to be satisfied and the prosec­ution has to prove those ingredients to make a person selling fertiliser to be a dealer. 8. As regards the requirement of 'mens rea' prior to the amendment of the Essential commodities Act made by Act No. c 36 of 1967, it was authoritatively pronounced by tae Supreme court in" Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43 that mens rea constituted an integral part of an offence under the Essential Commodities Act and the orders made th­ere under. 'Ream linguam nonfiction is mens rea' there is no guilty man without a guilty mind. "When the existence of a particular intent or a state of mind is a necessary ingredient of the offence, a prima facie proof of the existence of the intent or state of mind has been given by the prosecution, the defend­ant may excuse himself by disproving the existence in him o f any guilty intent or state of mind, for example, by showing that he was justified in doing the net which he is charged or that he did accidentally, or in ignorance, or that he had an honest belief in the existence of facts which, if they had really existed, would have made the act of an innocent one. The existence or reasonable grounds for belief is evidence of the honesty of that belief". (See Halsbury' s Laws of Eng­land, 3rd Ed., Vol 10 at p. 233). In Brend v. Would, (1946) 110 JP 317 at p. 318 it was full that it is of the utmost importance for the protection of liberty of the subject that the court should always bear in mind that unless the statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only were it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated. This being the position in law in the instant case we find that the Agent was acting under the agreement which made no reference to the price fixed under the Control Order and put no restriction on appoint­ment of carriers and their remunerations. There was also no restr­iction on the part of the Agent for dealing in non-controlled fe­rtiliser. Under such circumstances in the absence of clear ev­idence to show the presence of mens rea it would be safer to acquit than to convict. 9. As regards the requirement of a licence under Notif­ication No. AGA, 143/60/75 dated 19. 7. 62 that would relate to the subsequent period. Even though at the relevant time there was no requirement of such a licence fertiliser was still a controlled commodity under the Control Order and one could be held liable for violation thereof. However, in the in­stant case M/s. Manik Motor Works, was; not, found to be a dealer. 10. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any infirm­ity in the impugned judgment of acquittal either on law or on facts. The view taken by the trial Court can by no means be said to be unreasonable. The trial Court having taken a view favourable to the accused persons, there is no material to justify interference with the judgment of acquittal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.