JUDGMENT
Narinder Singh Rao, J.
1. Ashok Kumar Hazra, the appellant, stands convicted under Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal.
2. The appellant was running a fair price shop in Nildih, Jamshedpur in April, 1985 and even prior thereto. According to prosecution, he had charged Satyanarain P.W. extra by 19 paise per kg. of wheat vide cash memo (Ext. 2) on 17-4-1985. The wheat was then to be sold by him at the rate of Rs. 1.96 per kg. but he had charged Rs. 2.15 per kg. That way, he had charged an extra amount of Rs. 5.23 from Satyanarain P.W. for 27 kgs. and 500 grams of wheat. Consequent upon tiling of the complaint by Satyanarain P.W. before the authorities on 15-7-1985, the prosecution against the appellant was launched.
3. The appellant, in his examination, had denied the prosecution allegations, and Mated that he was innocent. He had maintained that his servant had unfortunately charged Rs. 5.23 extra from Satyanarain P.W. under a mistake and, he on learning about the same, had returned that excess amount on 19-4-1985 and obtained a receipt in that behalf on the back of Ext. 2.
4. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant, and the learned Additional P.P., appearing for the State, and going through the record, I am of the considered view that there is merit in this appeal, and the same deserves to succeed.
5. Undoubtedly, no mens rea is available in the case. The admitted case is that much prior to Satyanarain P.W. filing the complaint before the authorities on 15-7-1985, the appellant had already returned to him, the extra charged amount (Rs. 5.23) on 19-4-1985. Satyanarain P.W. has admitted that he had got back that amount of Rs. 5.23 from the appellant through his brother. The (appellant) himself had detected charging Rs. 5.23 extra and the appellant had voluntarily returned that amount to Satyanarain P.W. much prior to the letter’s complaining against him to the authorities.
6. In the given circumstances of the case, no criminal liabilities can be fasten upon the appellant.
7. For reasons stated above, this appeal is accepted, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled, and he is discharged from the liabilities of the same.