Sub-Inspector of Police Not Authoroize to Take Action Under Essential Commodities Act – Supreme Court.

On 23 March 2023, Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment (AVTAR SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB) , has set aside the conviction and sentence and observed that Clause 7 of the Order did not authorize a Sub-Inspector of Police to take action. The court held that 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.`

The case pertains to the sale of gas cylinders in black, where the appellants were found charging ₹250 for a cylinder instead of the prescribed rate of ₹102. The prosecution's case was based on the fact that the appellants were found in unauthorized possession of the gas cylinders. However, the only witnesses who supported the prosecution's case were two official witnesses, and none of the independent witnesses or alleged buyers of the cylinders in black supported the case.

The sole argument raised by the appellants was that the sub-Inspector of the police who had seized the cylinders and initiated the proceedings was not authorized to do so under Clause 7 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988. Clause 7 of the Order authorizes certain officers to stop and search any vessel or vehicle that the officer has reason to believe has been or is being or is about to be used in contravention of the Order. The argument was that the Sub-Inspector of Police did not fall under any of the officers authorized by Clause 7 of the Order to take action.

After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the relevant record, the Supreme Court observed that Clause 7 of the Order did not authorize a Sub-Inspector of Police to take action. The court held that 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. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Sub-Inspector of Police were unauthorized, and the appellants' conviction and sentence under Section 7 of the Act were set aside.

The court further observed that the prosecution's case was based solely on the fact of unauthorized possession of the gas cylinders, and there was no evidence to support the charge of black marketing. None of the independent witnesses or alleged buyers of the cylinders in black supported the prosecution's case. Therefore, the court held that the appellants were entitled to an acquittal.

The court also noted that the appellants had already undergone the sentence imposed by the trial court, and the fine imposed on them had been deposited. The court, therefore, directed that the bail bond be discharged.

The judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 562-SB of 1997 dated January 15, 2010, which had upheld the trial court's order, was also set aside. The judgment was pronounced on March 23, 2023, in New Delhi.

AVTAR SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB