[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shree Saptashrungi Co And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:13461-DB
53-WP-3784-13.doc
MPBalekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3784 OF 2013
Shree Saptashrungi Co. and Ors. ... Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3785 OF 2013
Mr. P.A. Pol a/w S. Suryawanshi and Ranjit H. i/by Pol
Legal Juris for the pettioners.
Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP, for the State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 18, 2026
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition arises from the
initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner through
First Information Report No. 3027 of 2010. The said FIR was
registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 3, 7, 8
and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 along with Section
186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The main grievance raised is that even if the entire case of
the prosecution is accepted as it is, the basic ingredients required
to attract the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act are not
satisfied. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the continuation of
53-WP-3784-13.doc
the criminal proceedings would be unjustified.
4. The prosecution story, as reflected from the First Information
Report and the accompanying material, proceeds on the footing
that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the State
Trading Corporation. It is stated that the storage and handling of
the goods were under the supervision of a Government approved
surveyor. According to the prosecution, the quantity of the
commodity stored by the petitioner was in excess of the quantity
permitted under a notification issued under the Essential
Commodities Act. On that basis it is alleged that the petitioner
violated the restrictions imposed by the statutory order. The
prosecution therefore contends that the petitioner has committed
offences punishable under the provisions of the Act. However,
when the matter is examined carefully, it becomes necessary to see
whether the commodity in question was in fact regulated by any
order issued under the Act. Unless such order exists and the
commodity falls within its scope, mere storage of goods cannot by
itself constitute an offence under the Essential Commodities Act.
5. At an earlier stage of the proceedings, this Court by order
dated 13 June 2014 examined the available record and recorded a
prima facie satisfaction regarding the nature of the commodity
seized in the case. The Court noted that the oil which had been
seized during the investigation did not appear to fall within the
category of commodities covered by any order issued under
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Section 3 is the
provision which empowers the Government to regulate or control
production, supply, distribution or storage of certain commodities
53-WP-3784-13.doc
through specific orders. Therefore, unless the commodity in
question is specifically brought within such an order, the penal
provisions of the Act cannot be invoked. The prima facie
observation recorded by this Court was thus based on the absence
of any material to show that the seized oil was a controlled
commodity under a valid order issued under Section 3.
6. During the pendency of this petition, the prosecution placed
on record another superior report dated 5 August 2017. That
report is stated to be under consideration. However, even after
taking note of this development, the position emerging from the
record remains substantially the same. A careful reading of the
First Information Report and the documents produced by the
prosecution indicates that the commodity involved is Palmolein oil.
There is nothing on record to demonstrate that Palmolein oil was a
restricted or controlled commodity under any order issued by the
Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act at
the relevant time. If the commodity itself is not covered by the
regulatory order, the very foundation for invoking the penal
provisions of the Act disappears. Criminal liability under the
Essential Commodities Act arises only when there is a breach of an
order validly issued under Section 3. In absence of such order
covering the commodity in question, the prosecution cannot
legally proceed.
7. Once this basic legal position is noticed, continuation of the
criminal case would serve no lawful purpose. The Court cannot
permit a prosecution to continue when the statutory requirements
for constituting the alleged offence are not satisfied. Allowing such
53-WP-3784-13.doc
prosecution to proceed would unnecessarily subject the petitioner
to criminal proceedings without legal basis. Such continuation
would amount to misuse of the process of law and would defeat
the purpose of justice.
8. For these reasons, the challenge raised by the petitioner
deserves to be accepted.
9. The rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(a).
10. The writ petition is disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
