Exclusion of Mens Rea and Socio-Economic Offences in India - Law Teacher

5/17/2017 Exclusion of Mens Rea and Socio-Economic Offences in India | Law Teacher
Exclusion Of Mens Rea And Socio-Economic

Offences In India.
Abstract
This note explores the criminality of socio-economic offences with specific emphasis on the concept of
mens rea. It is argued in this note that socio-economic offences should be treated as violations or
quasi-criminal offences and not as crimes. When mens rea has been expressly or impliedly (including
when it is not expressly excluded) excluded in a statute, courts cannot read such a requirement into the
language of the statute. If it is deemed to be a social welfare legislation which incidentally penalises a
particular conduct, court cannot read mens rea (which is a criminal law requirement) into the provision.
If it is deemed to be a criminal statute, courts still cannot read into the words of a statute a mens rea
requirement, as a criminal statute is required to be constructed strictly. These problems deny us the
opportunity of deducing a coherent principle which can be used in such a case. A way out if this
anomaly would be insertion of a Social Welfare Offences Code, as suggested by Malimath committee
and looking for alternative methods of punishment that can effectively increase the stigma against the
offenders.
This law essay is an example of a student's work
Disclaimer
This essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not
an example of the work written by our professional law writers.
Who wrote this essay?
Freelance Writing Jobs
Place an Order
1. The Problem Of Definition And A Possible Solution

Nearly everyone works with someone else in order to earn a living. Men are interested in getting a
maximum return for a minimum expenditure of effort and energy there is a common economic drive to
get rich quick." [1] In the wake of industrialisation, rapid urbanisation and changes in institutions,
norms and values, material advancement has become one of the main or the main goals of life. The story
of socio-economic offences in India represents the strain that Durkheim referred to when he called
crime to be a one possible response to the strains produced by the unequal opportunities available for
achieving success. [2]
There are various dimensions in which the issue of socio-economic offences have been discussed. It is
argued by some to be found to be at the intersection of civil and criminal law or the tort/crime
distinction. [3] Others view it as a component in the interaction between criminal law and
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminology/exclusion-of-mens-rea-in-india-law-essay.php 1/10
morality. [4] Some others view it as an encroachment on individual liberty. First, we will consider
whether we can identify peculiar characteristics of these offences and whether they can be called crime
in the traditional sense.
Ashworth calls criminal liability the strongest formal condemnation the society can inflict and it may
also result in a sentence which amounts to a severe deprivation of the ordinary liberties of the
offender." [5] It is the condemnation that requires a social justification. There are some activities that the
criminal law condemns and others which it controls. The activities which are condemned (murder, for
e.g) must be contrasted with those which are controlled (prostitution [6] , for e.g).
The problem of defining crime has been called the constant core of criminal law. As criminal law
symbolises the most extreme form of state power on individual liberty, when a conduct or result of a
conduct is criminalised, it has wide connotations in terms of status, social stigma and public
perception. The classical approach simplifies it by stating that what the state declares to be a crime is a
crime. But this approach is circuitous in nature it is a crime when state defines it as one and state
defines it as one when it assumes the characteristics crime. Criminology on the other hand is concerned
with the question what ought to be a crime?
It is argued that crime is primarily a construct of particular social and legal systems, reflecting
temporarily and geographically parochial interests and arrangements. [7] Thus, the assumption that
criminal law deals with a unitary, discrete category may not be desirable. [8] In this context, let us
analyse what has come to be called socio-economic offences and how we have dealt with them can
we define it? Do we need to define it?
A definition ideally (i) includes what is generally accepted as properly within this sphere, (ii) exclude
what is universally regarded as not being it and (iii) include or exclude borderline cases in the light of a
reasoned comparison of the phenomena in question. [9]
The term socio-economic offence should be contrasted and if and when necessary, differentiated from
terms (which are its manifestations) like white collar crimes, victimless crimes, public welfare
offences, organized crime, corporate crime, economic crime, regulatory offences, statutory
offences, quasi-criminal offences, anti-social offences, civil offences etc. The overlapping nature of
several conducts within these categories makes it difficult to compartmentalize offences under them. If
socio-economic offences are defined as those which affect the socio-economic condition in the country,
all criminal statutes, both major and minor, will find its way into the list.
White Collar Crimes
The Committee for Prevention of Corruption, 1993 [10] based its conclusions on the concept of white
collar crimes, when dealing with the issue of corruption. The law commission, in its 29th
report [11] also approached the subject of socio-economic offences from the angle of white collar
crimes. The report states that it has been defined approximately as a crime committed by a person of
respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation." [12] These crimes were very
serious in nature and deserved punishment even if there was no express intention to do the
crime". [13] The approximate definition, formulated by Edwin Sutherland has been a subject of
criticism from several quarters. [14] There has been no official or legal decision on the definition
anywhere, and the term remains ambiguous, uncertain and controversial. [15] Sutherland himself had to
defend his thesis because of the controversial conclusions of his study. [16] His argument was that as (a)
they were recognized in law as injurious to the public, (b) there were appropriate legal sanctions
prescribed as penalties for such violations and (c) the behaviour involved in the violations was generally
wilful and intentional in the sense of not being accidental and as not happening without awareness on
the part of the offenders. [17] It is not clear why Sutherland wanted to dispense with the traditional mens
rea doctrine even though he concluded that there was intention on the part of the offenders. Sutherlands
project, which led to the definition, was a comprehensive one, but based on narrow
considerations. [18] It had as its objective the need to relocate the emphasis of criminal law (which was
then on economically backward people or blue-collared criminals). He was concerned with whom the
alleged perpetrator was rather than what was done. But, it should not be confused with ordinary
criminal law crimes of upper class people. [19] This was obviously not unjustified considering the
growth of managerial positions and their ability to influence administrative officers. But, it is just one
minute aspect of the category, the ingredients of which we are trying to portray. However, the
ambiguous concept did influence studies in a tremendous way. It led to identification of those activities
which had a harmful impact but was never noticed either because of the treatment (different enforcement
machinery and processes) or non-treatment (which was previously considered merely unethical, like
ambulance chasing, lawyers guiding the criminal activities of corporations etc.) [20]
Disclaimer
Place an Order
Moreover, white collar crimes have evolved into organized crime (wherein the traditional criminals
collaborate with business houses for securing harmful ends like mafia, underworld etc. Criminalization
of politics can be linked with this category [21] ) and corporate crime (violations of human rights by
multinational corporations), which makes it a different area of study altogether. Thus, white collar crimes
can be called a subset of, and which no longer needs to be confused with or replaced by socio-economic
offences. Socio-economic offences and white collar crimes can be regarded as intersecting circles. [22]
Public Welfare Offences
The other term deserving analysis is public welfare offences coined by Francis Sayre in a classic
article. [23] He used it to denote a group of offences and public nuisances punishable irrespective of the
actors state of mind." [24] Stewart describes it as an almost limitless realm of statutory offences in
which there is only a minor breach, if at all, of the rules of morality." [25] Sayre observed that they could
be roughly classified into subdivisions of (i) illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, (ii) sales of impure or
adulterated food or drugs, (iii) sale of misbranded articles, (iv) violations of anti-narcotic acts, (v)
criminal nuisances, (vi) violations of traffic regulations, (vii) violations of motor-vehicles laws and (viii)
violations of general police regulations passed for the safety or well-being of the community. [26]
Industrialization and urbanization has made it necessary that certain standards of citizen behaviour must
be observed to safeguard individual interests and the efficient flow of activities which make up present
day community life (employers liability, social security, purity and quality of foods, drugs and medical
preparations, road traffic regulations etc.). [27] He had in mind those regulatory offences like Factories
Act and other industrial and labour laws. In such offences, criminal law does not punish in the
traditional sense, but places certain standards of behaviour for streamlining conduct.
Victimless Crimes
Next, let us consider the term victimless crimes. Victimless crimes are created when we attempt to
ban through criminal legislation the exchange between willing partners of strongly desired goods and
services." [28] Prostitution is a clear example. But, in such cases, there may be certain objective
consequences (enforcement of morality, in the case of prostitution) regardless of victimization. As the
victims are diverse and unorganized, it is the duty of the State to protect them.
New Forms of Crime"
The Santhanam Committee report observed that, the Penal Code does not deal with any satisfactory
manner with acts which may be described as social offences having regard to the special circumstances
in which they are committed and which have now become a dominant feature of certain powerful
sections of modern society." [29] The committee broadly categorised the offences as
offences calculated to prevent or obstruct the economic development of the country and endanger its
economic health;
evasion and avoidance of taxes lawfully imposed;
misuse of their positions by public servants in making of contracts and disposal of public property, issue
of licenses and permits and similar other matters;
delivery by individuals and industrial and commercial undertaking of goods not in accordance with
agreed specifications in fulfilment of contracts entered into with public authorities;
profiteering, black marketing and hoarding;
adulteration of foodstuffs and drugs;
theft and misappropriation of public property and funds; and
trafficking in licenses, permits, etc.
The committee went on to endorse the view that these offences should be included in a new chapter in
the Indian Penal Code so that they will find a prominent place in the general criminal law of the
country." [30]
Considering the comparisons made above, we could attempt to particularize those elements of socio-
economic offences that are unavoidable. In most of the offences which the Santhanam Committee has
identified, there is an undeniable element of economic benefit (in terms of actual monetary value) or
advantage (in terms of comparative enrichment). The law commission, in its 29th report identified the
following common features:
the offences are committed by the upper classes of society
those upper classes themselves set the moral standards of society, and hence a serious view is not taken
of these offences;
the victims of the offences are unascertainable persons (usually the State or community), as contrasted
with the Indian Penal Code, where most of the offences are against a specified individual. [31]
Disclaimer
Place an Order
But these features are based on white-collar crimes, which as stated earlier is only a sub set of socio-
economic offences, as it is not necessary that upper classes of society are involved in every case (for
e.g, beggary, though its nature as an offence is controversial).
In its 47th report, the commission noted the following salient features
Motive of the criminal is avarice or rapaciousness (not lust or hate).
Background of the crime is non-emotional.
Victim is usually the State or consuming public.
Mode of operation is fraud, not force.
Act is deliberate and wilful.
Social interest is protected for preservation and augmentation of general economy. [32]
This seems to be an acceptable set of features. Based on these observations, if we attempt to define a
socio-economic offence, it can be broadly termed as an activity that harms the allocation and
organization of resources in a society. A purely social evil like sati or atrocities towards members of
scheduled caste/ scheduled tribe (creating lack of opportunity for those involved to access the resources)
and a purely economic conduct like tax evasion find a justifiable place in such a list. But, consider the
counter-argument that even murder deprives the society of a valuable human resource and so, all
offences are essentially anti-social. [33] What differentiates these offences from those penalised as
offences against property or person in the Indian Penal Code? It is submitted that in the case of socio-
economic offences, the injury to the society is predominant, unlike other offences, where injury can be
traced to a particular individual. [34]
It is submitted that, by virtue of these offences being defined on the basis of motive and a criminal policy
of social welfare, they should be treated as violations and not as crimes. This does not mean that they
are harmless or trivial in nature. On the other hand, they are more sinister than many true crimes. Since
these offences easily permeate the social structure, they are virtually legitimised ultimately (like
corruption). Considering the vulnerability of the society to such offences, they should be treated
differently.
This is where the importance of our approach towards such offences comes up i.e it is the attitude
towards the offender that marks the distinction. In India, we have criminalized many of these offences.
The issue is whether we approve of the efforts to curb these activities through criminal law.
2. Redefining Our Response To Socio-Economic

Offences?
Two issues merit consideration: (i) In most cases, such offences are strict liability offences i.e they
exclude or modify the requirement of, mens rea. To what extent is this practice justified? To what extent
is the judicial practice of reading mens rea into such statutes justified? and (ii) what would be the most
appropriate response to such offences? Issue (i) will be dealt with here leading to a conclusion based on
issue (ii). [35]
This is not to say that there are no other issues. On the other hand there are plenty (vicarious liability,
situational liability in statutory offences etc.). Nor does it mean these issues are the most important.
However, these issues signify what has been the prime concern of debates and discussions in relation to
socio-economic offences.
At the outset, it is submitted that when mens rea has been expressly or impliedly (including when it is
not expressly excluded) in a statute, courts cannot read such a requirement into the language of the
statute. If it is deemed to be a social welfare legislation which incidentally penalises, court cannot read
mens rea (which is a criminal law requirement) into the provision. If it is deemed to be a criminal statute,
courts still cannot read into the words of a statute a mens rea requirement, as a criminal statute is
required to be constructed ideally. A way out if this anomaly might be insertion of a Social and
Economic Offences Code, as suggested by Malimath committee and looking for alternative methods of
punishment that can effectively increase the stigma against the offenders.
Mens Rea in Socio-Economic Offences
The Indian approach to the problem suffers from the same kind of inconsistencies as the English one
because our criminal law has its roots (and form?) and is constantly supplemented by principles of
common law. There are offences in the Indian Penal Code, for which no element of mens rea is required
(waging war against the government is an example). But, even in such cases courts have applied the
doctrine of mens rea. [36]
Disclaimer
Place an Order
First, let us view the development of the issue in common law. Most of the enactments focus their
attention on the acts themselves, irrespective of the mental intention. This is one reason why some others
refuse to consider it a crime, as it does not punish a guilty mind. [37] Many attempts have been made
to separate this class of offences from those of obvious criminality. Such attempts resulted in the
classification of these offences in the category of administrative penal law and public welfare
offences. [38] As Sayre asks, are we to look forward to a day when criminality will be based on
external behaviour alone irrespective of intent?" [39]
In a developing country like India, constraints of economic resources have necessitated the imposition of
certain social controls to promote planned development (licensing, regulation, distribution of scarce
commodities etc.) [40] To some extent, it is imperative to impose strict liability for laying down
standards of behaviour. [41] This is because the aim is public welfare. [42] But, is it justified in all
cases? It should be noted that what we are discussing is the criminalization of productive social and
economic conduct.
Mens rea requirement is a common law legacy. However, there are instances in common law where the
doctrine is dispensed with (like public nuisance contempt of court and libel). This was justified because
(i) it was difficult to prove mens rea in some cases, (ii) as they were penalised under social welfare
legislations, a purposive construction was required to further the objectives of the act. (iii) punishment in
these cases is usually light and (iv) they are offences which are in the nature of mala prohibita and not
mala in se. [43]
Glanville suggests that the kind of fault generally required for criminal liability should be laid down and
this requirement should be implied by law where it is not expressly laid down. [44] This is because there
is a possibility that strict liability offences may lead to loss of confidence in the administration of the
law. This would not lengthen the court proceeding because the fault element has to necessarily be
considered by the magistrate in order to mitigate punishment, even in strict liability offences. There are
of course cases where the requirement is impossible. The regular practice is to state the prohibited act
without bothering to specify a fault element. It can be assumed that (i) parliament intended to create
strict liability and this is confirmed by the fact that when the courts also exclude mens rea, the provisions
are left unamended. Or (ii) parliament intended that the casus omissus be filled by the courts, which fact
is confirmed by the parliament not making the provision more severe when courts do so and by the
parliament making amendments when courts do not do so. It cannot be argued that in minor offences,
efficiency of the system makes it imperative to dispense with it. In minor case, negligence has a role to
play. [45] If people getting away because of dishonest defences are the problem, the same can be solved
by shifting the burden of proof. Strict liability requires proof that the act was done in breach of a statute.
But, even in that case, it should be asked whether prosecution should not at least prove negligence?
The authorities on strict liability are so conflicting that it is impossible to abstract any coherent principle
on when form of liability arises and when it does not. [46] The result is that in the absence of strict
words of the statute, judges can generally attach any fault element, or refuse to attach any fault
element." [47] As remarked, It is high time that judges made their minds upon what absolute or strict
liability means." [48]
Strict liability is said to be imposed when the offence is the result of modern legislative policy and not
of traditional morality, or in other words where it is a matter of malum prohibitum and not malum in se.
Mala prohibita are sometimes called quasi-criminal offences. It was held in Sweet v. Parsley [49] that
strict liability applies to purely technical offences. Now, the pendulum has swung back with regard to
strict liability in criminal law. [50]
Disclaimer
Place an Order
Now, let us consider approaches taken by courts in India. The law and the confusion created by it in
England were incorporated into our legal system also. The 1965 case of Mayer Hans George v. State of
Maharashtra [51] continues to be the locus classicus on the issue because of the divergent views on the
same issue. The dissenting minority judgment of Subbarao J strongly emphasized the common law
presumption of mens rea asserting that a court cannot ignore mens rea on a slippery ground of a welfare
measure unless the statute compels it to do so." [52] The nature of mens rea that will be implied in a
statute creating an offence depends on the object of the act and the provisions thereof. [53] The
presumption of mens rea can be displaced by ascertaining whether it is overborne by the language of the
statute, read in the light of the objects and purposes of the statute and whether the purpose of the statute
would be rendered futile if the requirement is found to be necessary. [54] Thus, according to the
dissenting judge, the question whether mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence will be
decided by the court, when a case comes up. This is where the doctrine that, unless a statute, either
clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea as a constituent part of crimes, the court should
not find a man guilty of the offence unless he had a guilty mind" comes into play. [55] This doctrine
could be utilized in those socio-economic offences, where the penalty is small. [56]
This proposition cannot be accepted because it creates unwanted indeterminacy in law, especially
criminal law, which is not desirable in terms of individual liberty. The majority judgment also took the
same approach but reached a different conclusion, because it thought smuggling to have the effect of
disturbing very rudely the national economy of the country." [57] In another case, it was held that
where it cannot be said that the object of the statute would be defeated if the mens rea is read as an
ingredient, courts should be slow to dispense with it. [58] The common law presumption was thus
ingrained into the Indian law. For example, in a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, it is no defence that the vendor was ignorant that the article being sold is misbranded or
adulterated. [59] The question, whether the liability under a statute is absolute, is ultimately one of
construction of the statute and the answer will depend on the language of the statute and the policy
behind it and how far enforcement would be affected by adhering to the doctrine. It is more a matter of
pragmatism than criminal law.
M H George was relied by various courts in the country, mostly rebutting the mens rea presumption. A
servant who sold adulterated food on behalf of his employer was held to be liable under an act, which
was a welfare legislation to prevent health hazards by consuming adulterated food". [60] Provision in
an act enacted with a view to safe-guard the interest of the public regarding trust money was held to be
an absolute offence, as it was punishable only with fine" and carries no stigma with it." [61] The trend
seems to be changing with the apex court decision in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors
and Ors., [62] which held that legislative cassus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative
process" when considering whether mens rea should be considered or not. [63] There are other cases
which refused to go into the aspect of mens rea at all. [64] The attitude of the court, it is submitted, in
Dharmendra seems to be the appropriate position to take because of the following reasons:
The statutes creating new crimes represent the attempts of the legislature to give effect to the criminal
policy of the moment. Legislature is thus primarily concerned with finding the best way of dealing with
a particular mischief and its decisions are not reached by a careful regard to the general principles of
criminal law. [65] The law commission observes that, as these statutes reflect a particular criminal
policy, it should not be seen in conjunction with the offences in the Indian Penal Code or in other words,
that it should be seen as quasi-criminal. Moreover, the legislature and the government may try to
equip the enforcers of law at any time with powers required at that time, considering the prevailing
circumstances, the nature and extent of activities of evaders and the extent of power requisite for the
officers enforcing the law, including rules and notifications to deal with offenders." [66]
Disclaimer
Place an Order
In strict liability offences, the enforcement agency like the police and government agencies do not come
down like wolf on the fold." They generally consider the question of fault when deciding to prosecute.
But, this approach may delegate the aspect of fault to the enforcer which may not be desirable.
Further, lack of intention can be seen in two contexts ignorance either of law or the relevant facts. The
duty of the individual is greater in these circumstances because of the inherently dangerous activity
involved. In cases of ignorance of fact a fair approach would be to ask: has the defendants conduct
exhibited an unreasonable disregard for apprising himself of the true facts involved? [67] What is
suggested here is that though some situations warrant imposition of strict liability there are other
situations wherein the reasonableness of the actors conduct may be considered.
There are two competing principles of construction. One favours the individual. The other disfavours a
construction that unreasonably hinders the task of prosecution. [68]
Earlier, legislature was not thought to be competent to override the established rules of common law.
But, today supremacy of legislature cannot be doubted. [69]
In commercial matters, the taking of precautions costs money, and if perfection was really insisted upon,
the cost of the product would rise substantially, without compensating advantage to the consumer.
The law commission identified four types of offences within socio-economic offences:
Offences which undoubtedly require mens rea. [70]
Offences, which though require mens rea, has a special requirement of their own;
Offences, which with a fair measure of accuracy can be called strict liability offences;
Acts, the moral culpability of which is a controversy (tax avoidance, for example). [71]
The above discussion assumes that the parliament has the power to enact a law dispensing with the
traditional requirement of mens rea. It is another issue to be looked into whether the constitution restricts
the enactment of a statute that excludes the mental element. [72]
3. Conclusion
Let us consider a statement [w]hen the criminal law invades the spheres of private morality and social
welfare, it exceeds its proper limits at the cost of neglecting its primary tasks. By a criminal, people in
general understand not only a person who is liable to be punished, but also a person who ought to be
punished. The instrument of criminal law is punishment. In contrast, the instruments of moral law are
teaching, training and exhortation.
The communist government of the erstwhile Soviet Union went to the extent of punishing certain
economic crimes with death penalty. [73] American courts, on the other hand and almost during the same
period, held imprisonment for imputed liability to be violative of due process clause guaranteed under
the constitution.
The virtual absence of any serious social stigma against economic offenders is definitely a problem. This
may defeat the preventive purpose for which a socio-economic legislation is enacted. There is no doubt
that such behaviour creates a significant degree of social disutility. We could look for means to prevent it
effectively other than by criminal law, if we can answer the question whether the effects of
criminalizing this type of behaviour would produce other disadvantageous consequences which might
outweigh the benefits of thus extending the criminal law?
This question must be analyzed in the context of what is called over criminalization. The law
commission noted this in 1966 as intensive multiplication of offences". [74] As Darryl Brown observes,
criminal codes expand but dont contract. The result is ever expanding codes that have moved us ever
closer to a world where the law in the books makes everyone a felon." [75] The phenomenon peculiar
in the Untied States has prompted even the courts to observe that, If we use prison to achieve social
goals regardless of the moral innocence of those we incarcerate, then imprisonment loses its moral
opprobrium, and our criminal law becomes morally arbitrary." [76]
It is submitted that the appropriate punishment should be one of re-integrative shaming." Shaming
theorists advocate publicizing crimes for serious offences. Punishment strategies can exploit the fact the
people who are involved in these offences care for their reputation. [77]
The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System [78] suggested that offences may be classified
into four codes (i) Social Welfare Offences Code for offences which are social in origin or nature
and for which community service is preferred to jail sentence, (ii) Correctional Offence Code which
would include offences which are punishable with less than 6 months imprisonment and which may not
be considered as crimes, (iii) Criminal Offences Code which would really be the Crime" part of the
offences consisting of serious offences and (iv) Economic and Other Offences Code which would
include offences like tax frauds, cyber crimes etc which would be punished with a combination of jail
sentence, imprisonment and community service. [79] The report, though did not deal with it
exhaustively considering it a policy issue.
Thus, a classification of mala prohibita offences may be desirable. Those which are considered as
seriously harmful by the criminal policy must be criminalised. Those which are minor must be
considered as contraventions or violations.

Exclusion of Mens Rea and Socio-Economic Offences in India - Law Teacher

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exclusion of Mens Rea and Socio-Economic Offences in India - Law Teacher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/17/2017 Exclusion of Mens Rea and Socio-Economic Offences in India | Law Teacher

Exclusion Of Mens Rea And Socio-Economic

This law essay is an example of a student's work

Who wrote this essay?

Freelance Writing Jobs

1. The Problem Of Definition And A Possible Solution

This law essay is an example of a student's work

Who wrote this essay?

Freelance Writing Jobs

This law essay is an example of a student's work

Who wrote this essay?

Freelance Writing Jobs

2. Redefining Our Response To Socio-Economic

This law essay is an example of a student's work

Who wrote this essay?

Freelance Writing Jobs

This law essay is an example of a student's work

Who wrote this essay?

Freelance Writing Jobs

This law essay is an example of a student's work

Who wrote this essay?

Freelance Writing Jobs

You might also like