LANDMARK CASE
Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1966 SC 43 · Supreme Court of India · Criminal law
At a glance
- Citation: AIR 1966 SC 43
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Criminal law
- In one line: Yes. Mens rea was required, and he was acquitted for acting honestly.
1 Facts
A trader stored foodgrains without a licence, believing his application was being processed.
2 Issue
Is mens rea required under the Essential Commodities Act?
3 What the court decided
Yes. Mens rea was required, and he was acquitted for acting honestly.
4 Why it matters
A contrast to Mayer Hans George.
5 Think about it
Why did the two cases differ?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Criminal law
- Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 1698
- Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
- Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1
- Basdev v. State of PEPSU AIR 1956 SC 488
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of IndiaNational Legal Services Authority v. Union of India →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.