The Supreme Court has acquitted the accused convicted under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 which prohibits the unauthorized possession of gas cylinders and specifies the punishment for the same.

The single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal ruled that only Inspector has the power of entry, search and seizure under LPG Order, 1988.

Brief Facts of the Case

Sub-­Inspector of Police along with other police officials was present at the bus stop when they received secret information that the appellants were indulging in selling gas cylinders in black. Finding the information to be reliable, FIR was registered and police officials went at the spot and apprehended the accused. They were taken into custody

In the evidence led before the trial court, none of the independent witnesses or the alleged buyers of the cylinders in black supported the case of the prosecution. It was only two official witnesses who deposed in favour of the prosecution. The only charge which could be proved was unauthorized possession of gas cylinders on the basis of
which the trial court convicted the appellants and ordered imprisonment. The order passed by the trial court was upheld in appeal by the High Court which is being appealed herein.

The Counsel for the appellant has contended that in terms of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 dated 08.03.1988 entry and seizure should be in the exercise of the powers under Clause 7 of the Order which authorizes only certain persons to stop and search any vessel or vehicle which the officer has reason to believe has been or is being or is about to be used in contravention of the order.

He thus submitted that as per clause 7, an officer or the Department of Food and Civil Supplies of the Government, not below the rank of an Inspector authorized by such Government and notified by Central Government or any officer, not below the rank of a Sales Officer of an Oil Company, or a person authorized by the Central Government or a State Government and notified by the  Central  Government may,  with a  view to ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Order, for the purpose of satisfying himself that this order or any order made thereunder have been complied with, is authorized to carry out such exercise/seizure. In the case in hand, he averred the action has been taken by the sub­Inspector of the Police who, as per the Government Order, is not authorized and thus the entire case of the prosecution falls.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the State contended that the accused was found in possession of an unauthorized gas cylinder and should not be acquitted merely on a technical default 

Supreme Court's Observation

The Court of Justice Rajesh Bindal at the outset emphasized, “Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are necessarily forbidden" and cited Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India.

The Court noted that the main issue in the case was whether a sub-inspector had the power of entry, search, and seizure under section 13 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution), 2000.

It went on to rule in favour of the accused and held that the sub-inspector did not have the power of entry, search, and seizure under section 13.

"In the absence of the authority and power with the Sub­Inspector to take action as per the Order, the proceedings initiated by him will be totally unauthorised and have to be struck down", the court ruled.

CASE TITLE:  Avtar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, 2023 Latest Caselaw 247 SC

CASE DETAILS: Crl.A. No.-001711-001711 / 2011

CORAM: Justice Rajesh Bindal

CITATION: 2023 Latest Caselaw 247 SC

Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com

 

Picture Source :