ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:-

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide Dean
(Academics),Professor C.M.Jariwala and Assistant Professor Mr. Shashank Shekhar for their exemplary
guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement to give shape to this project. The blessing, help and
guidance given by them time to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to
embark.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my respected seniors who share their
cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped me in completing this task through
various stages.

Lastly, I thank the almighty, my parents, brother, sisters and friends for their constant encouragement
without which this assignment would not have been possible.

Sonakshi Banerjee

OBJECTIVE :To critically analyse the facts of the case and the issues put forward and have a better understanding of the
question of law to be discussed on. And try to put that understanding in the contemporary world. The case
basically revolves around the issue of Mens Rea.

INTRODUCTION :In Nathulal Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant dealt in foodgrains at Dhar, Madhya Pradesh and
was prosecuted in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Dhar, for having in stock 885 maunds and
21/4 seers of wheat to sell but he did not have a licence for doing the same and thereby committed an
offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appellant pleaded that he had no
intentions to violate the provisions of the particular section of the given act and stored the grains after

already applying for a licence and believed that it would be issued to him. The learned Additional District
Magistrate, Dhar, on fiding that the appellant did not have a guilty mind acquitted him. The Division Bench
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, convicted the appellant on the basis that the idea of guilty
mind was very much different from the idea of theft and thus cancelled his acquisition and sentenced the
appellant to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000 failure to pay which may lead to a six months
of imprisonment. Hence the appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

1. HEADING
(i)
CASE NAME : Nathulal Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh
(ii)
COURT NAME : Supreme Court
(iii)
DATE OF DECISION : 22nd March 1965
(iv)
WRIT PETITION NUMBER : AIR 1966 SC 43
(v)
BENCH OF JUDGES : K.S.Shah, R.Bachawat
2. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DEALT WITH
(i) Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955
(ii) The Madhya Pradesh Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958
3. CASES CITED IN THE JUDGEMENT
(i) Srinivas Mall Vs King-Emperor, ILR 26 Pat 460: (AIR 1947 PC 135),
(ii) Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(iii)
Hariprasada Rao v. State, 1951 AIR 204, 1951 SCR 322
(iv)State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George

4. HELD

(i)

The appeal of the appellant was allowed, and the order of the High Court regarding the

conviction of the appellant was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the offence he was charged.

(ii)

The bail bond was discharged. And any fine that was paid was due to be returned.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:Since the methodology of research is DOCTRINAL research methodology i.e. the method of my analysis is
descriptive and analytical .While researching on the topic, various books and internet sources have been
consulted. For thorough study of project topic, all the possible means and reasons have been used. The
project topic has been elaborated to best of knowledge and available information.
I would refer from various other sources such as law journals and sites for searching the relevant cases for
making my final draft. I will include all relevant data related to this topic in more detail in my final draft.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

www.indiankanoon.org

www.nlrd.org
www.stpl-india.in
www.supremecourtcases.com
www.indianlawcases.com
www.hrln.org