S. Haque, C. J. (Acting) — This petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the State of Assam has assailed the judgment and order dated 10.6.1982 passed by the Sessions Judge. Kamrup, Gaubati (Judicial Authority) in Criminal Appeal No.41 (K-4) of 1981 setting aside the order of confiscation dated 17.6.1981 passed by the Additional Collector cum Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati exercising power under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The allegation was that the respondents carried on business of essential commodities without licence under the Assam Paddy and Rice Procurement (Licencing and Levy) Order, 1980 and the Assam Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers (Licencing and Control) Order, 1977 and the supply staff seized essential commodities of that firm on 12.1.1981. The sale proceed of the commodities amounting Rs. 2,16,933.50 paise was kept under revenue deposit pending enquiry under section 6 A of the Essential Commodi­ties Act for confiscation. The Additional Collector cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 17.6.1981 confiscated the sale proceeds. Thereupon, the respondents, preferred appeal before the District & Sessions Judge under the provision of section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The only ground for confiscation was that the respondents carried the business of essential commodities without obtaining licence from concerned authorities. The Additional Collector cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 17.6.1981 confiscated the sale proceeds. Thereupon, the respondents, preferred appeal before the District & Sessions Judge under the provision of section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The only ground for confiscation was that the respondents carried the business of essential commodities without obtaining licence from concerned authorities. The defence plea in the confiscation proceeding was that they celebrated 'Mohaiat' ceremony of the firm on 27.7.80 and immediately thereafter a petition affixing proper court fee stamp was submitted for a licence in Form A under the Assam Pulses, EJiole Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers (Licencing and Control) Order 1977;and another petition dated 28.7.80 affixing necessary court fee was submitted for granting dealership licence under the Assam Paddy and Rice Procurement (licencing and Levy) Order 1979; and that the supply authority made enquiry on those petitions and submitted report stating that the respondent has fulfilled the conditions and became eligible to get licences and recommended their case; and that supply staff gave understanding to carry on their business pending issue of necessary licences; and that respondents started the business by maintaining accounts and by exhibiting the stocks and price lists at the prominent place as required under the Rules} and that daily return of stocks and sales were submitted to the supply staff visited the shop from time to time and verified the affairs of the business/stock registers etc. 4. It was an admitted fact that the respondents had no licence on the date of seizure on 12.1.1981, but their formal petitions with necessary recommendation by the Supply Officers to grant licences were pending before the Licencing Authority for issuance of required licences. Learned Govt. Advocate, Mr. U. Das submits that a confiscation was justified because the business of essential commodities was carried on in violation of the provisions of the Orders and that submission of petition for licences, process taken by Supply Department thereon and carrying on business in anticipation of licences would not protect the respondents. We areas learned counsel Mr. J.P.Bhattacharjee submits that the violation if any was mere technical and ingredients of mens-rea had not been established for confiscation. 5. Notice specifying grounds of proposed confiscation under section 6A on the concerned party giving reasonable time for explanations against such grounds with reasonable opportunity of hearing were necessary. We areas learned counsel Mr. J.P.Bhattacharjee submits that the violation if any was mere technical and ingredients of mens-rea had not been established for confiscation. 5. Notice specifying grounds of proposed confiscation under section 6A on the concerned party giving reasonable time for explanations against such grounds with reasonable opportunity of hearing were necessary. It was clear that although power of confiscation was discretionary, the authority had to meticulously observed the formalities of section 6A before passing an order of confiscation. Formalities required under law had not been complied. Besides, the decisions of different High Courts and of the Supreme Court have unanimously held that in a proceeding under section 6A, ingredi­ent of mens-rea must be established in order to sustain confiscation as valid. 6. The decision in the case Nathulal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1966 SC 43 was directly on the point. It was held affirmati­vely that proof of mens-rea is an essential ingredient in a case of such nature for the purpose of confiscation. The view taken was that when a person concerned made application for licence for the purpose and in anticipation of issuance of the licence acts, there could be no meos-rea to punish or impose penalty. In another case Madbab K. Mirashi vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1977 Crl. L, J. 1800, the Bombay High Court held that before an order of confiscation under section 6A of the Act, it is required to prove contravention of any Order under the Act, and also mens-rca before confiscation would be ordered. The Additional Collector-cum- Additional Deputy Commissioner failed to appreciate this decision whereas tha learue Sessions Judge had appreciated it and aptly relied on it. Again in the case M/s Mewalal Kapildeo vs. State of Bihar & others reported in 1978 Crl L. J 873 the Patna High Court held that mens-rea was essential ingredient to be established for confiscation under section 6A of the Act. 7. In the instant case, the official record and report of the Department proved that the respondent made applications for licences and recomm­endation was made by the concerned officer Shri J. Sarma of the Su ply Department after proper enquiry to issue licences There was further report by the Sub-Inspector of Supply on 8.2.1981 whereby recommendation for granting licences have been made. There was another note dated 20.2.1981 of the supply staff as to the submissions of return by the respondent which was found correct and issue of licence was in process and thus no action was props 2d against the dealer. This indicates that at one time the Supply Department allowed the respondent to carry on the business by necessary implications. Another note dated H.2,1981 of the Sub-Inspector of Supply disclosed that respondents firm had regularly maintained accounts, displayed stock/price on the board, submitted daily returns, and these gave the impr­ession on th2 officer that issuance of licence was in the process and therefore, he proposed no action. However, in spite of such reports and notes, the Supply Department passed the remarks on 22.2,81 and decided to take action against the respondents for carrying business without licence ignoring pendency of the applications and process taken thereon. The higher officers put endorsement without indicating for confiscation action or to issue licence for regularisation. All these facts/materials on record have been elaborately discussed by the District & Sessions Judge/ appellate authority. 8. Mens-rea is an essential ingredient of criminal offence unless excluded by statute. An offence under the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Food Grain Orders framed under section 3 necessarily involves a guilty mind as an ingredient of the offence. It would be legitimate to hold an offender guilty only when the offence is intentionally committed contravening the Orders, but conducts of the offender indicating absence of the mens-rea being an essential ingrained to prove the guilt would be enough to fail the charges. Furthermore, particularly in the matter of an order of confiscation under section 6A, mens-rea must be proved/established when such order is to be made without or before the alleged offender is found guilty for contraven­tion of any Order framed under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 9. After the applications for licences were submitted, the supply staff from time to time visited the firm, verified their records as to the business of essential commodities, found every thing correct, recommended for granting licence and did not propose for any action for violation of any Order or absence of licence. The respondent were carrying on the business under bonaftde belief which has reasonable basis and so necessary mens-rea for contravention of the Orders was absent. 10. The respondent were carrying on the business under bonaftde belief which has reasonable basis and so necessary mens-rea for contravention of the Orders was absent. 10. Learned District & Sessions Judge was justified to set aside order of confiscation directing to return the sale proceed to the respondents. 11. There is no substance in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is rejected and the rule is discharged. The confiscation authority is directed to return the sale proceed to the respondents immediately.