"Mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955." Discuss with case law.

In the case of Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1966 S.C. 43) it was held by the Supreme Court that mens rea or guilty mind is an ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 i.e., an intentional contravention of an order made under Section 3, is an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 7. In other words, if the dealer did believe bona fide that he could store the foodgrains for instance, without infringing any order under Section 3, there could be no contravention under Section 7. It was observed by the Supreme Court in this case that mens rea is an essential ingredient of any criminal offence. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the Statute would otherwise be defeated. The nature of mens rea that would be implied in a Statute creating an offence depends on the object of the Act and the provisions thereof. In the case of Hariprasad Rao v. State (AIR 1951 SC 264) , it was observed that unless a Statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, an accused cannot be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind. Therefore, mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 7 of the Act.