Principles

·  CRIMINAL LAW — Foodstuffs — Weight insufficient — Foodstuffs and Necessaries

·  Ordinance 1926,s. 20(1) Must prove mens rea to convict master.

·  PRICES AND CHARGES — Foodstuffs — Weight insufficient — Foodstuffs and Necessaries Ordinance 1926, s 20(1) — Must prove mens rEa to convict master.

To convict the master oF a bakery of selling bread of insufficient weight under Foodstuffs and Necessaries Ordinance 1926, s. 20(l), the’ prosecution must prove Mens rea by proving either his knowledge of the deficiency or such negligence as can be said to encourage fraud in his servants.

To convict the master oF a bakery of selling bread of insufficient weight under Foodstuffs and Necessaries Ordinance 1926, s. 20(l), the’ prosecution must prove Mens rea by proving either his knowledge of the deficiency or such negligence as can be said to encourage fraud in his servants.

To convict the master oF a bakery of selling bread of insufficient weight under Foodstuffs and Necessaries Ordinance 1926, s. 20(l), the’ prosecution must prove Mens rea by proving either his knowledge of the deficiency or such negligence as can be said to encourage fraud in his servants.

Judgment

Galal Ali Lutfi, P.J., July 2, 1961:- concerning  my wire ordering the release of prisoners one El Hag Farah and a certain Hassan Mohamed Ali, I have quashed both finding and sentence and ordered the release of the accused forthwith. Though the informations against the accused were under different numbers, yet they are of the same nature and so I am not going to deal with them separately. In the above cases the Police have visited two bakeries and weighed some loaves which were found to be of less weight than that required by the Authorities. In both cases the prosecu tion did not adduce any evidence to prove that the accused were solely responsible for the deficiency in weight. It is not in evidence that they knew of such deficiency. Both are bakery owners and they have certain servants who work for them. over whom they have control, and so what is required from them is diligence and care only, and they are not responsible if their servants committed a mistake. I agree that these are cases of strict responsibility where the master should answer for the mistake of his servant, but I do not agree that he is to be questioned unless it is proved that he knew of such deficiency or he has encouraged it through negligence on his part. Mens rea must be prosed, and it is very essential in such cases in order to protect the liberty of the subject. Lord Goddard, C.J., in the case of Brend v. Wood, which was a case of strict responsibility stated as follows

It is of the utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the subject that a Court should always bear in mind that unless a statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, the Court should not find a man guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has a guilty’ mind.”

In this case the Police ought to have questioned the actual makers of the bread and to find out what instructions the accused had given to their servants and how they check their work. if this was known the Court could base reached a fair conclusion. The deficiency was not intended, because in the case of accused El Hag Farah only 18 loaves out of about one hundred were found to be of a lesser weighty and the total deficiency did not exceed a loaf and a half in the whole quantity. The same deficiency in a similar quantity was found in the accused Hassan Mohamed Ali’s bread. So from such a trivial deficiency neither intention nor negligence could reasonably be inferred on the part of the master or the servant. It is therefore unwise to convict on such weak evidence and in the absence of mens rea.

Editor’s Note: Cf., Sudan Government v. Mohamed El Faki Abdalla, (1962) S.L.J.R. 155, 156 (Salah El Din Hassan, P.J)