AVTAR SINGH & ANR. Versus STATE OF PUNJAB

AVTAR SINGH & ANR.  Versus STATE OF PUNJAB  

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1711 OF 2011

AVTAR SINGH & ANR.           .…Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB                             …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The   judgment   of   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   &

Haryana   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   562­SB   of   1997   dated

January 15, 2010 is under challenge in this Appeal.

2. The appellants are aggrieved of their conviction

under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2

3. The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated

July 8, 1997 had convicted the appellants and directed them

to   undergo   imprisonment   for   a   period   of   six   months

alongwith fine of ₹ 500/­ each.

4. The facts, as are available on record, are that on

26.02.1995, Sub­Inspector of Police alongwith other police

officials was present at bus stop, Phagwara.  They received a

secret   information   that   the   appellants   were   indulging   in

selling gas cylinders in black.  They were charging ₹ 250/­

(Rs. two hundred and fifty only) instead of the prescribed

rate of ₹102/­(Rs. one hundred and two only).  Their truck

bearing No. HR­05A­4918 was parked in front of Chawla

Auto Workshop.  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.

5. 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.

3

6. 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.

7. The order passed by the trial court was upheld in

appeal by the High Court.  

8. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel

for the appellants is that in terms of Liquefied Petroleum

Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988

dated 08.03.1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Order’),

entry and seizure should be in exercise of the powers under

clause 7 of the Order.    Clause 7 of the Order authorises

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.

9. Clause   3   of   the   Order   restricts   unauthorised

possession of gas cylinders.  The submission is 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 authorised by such Government and notified by

Central Government or any officer not below the rank of a

4

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   ensure

compliance with the provisions of the Order, for the purpose

of   satisfying   himself   that   this   order   or   any   order   made

thereunder has been complied with, is authorised  to carry

out such exercise/seizure.

10. In the case in hand, the action has been taken by

sub­Inspector   of   the   Police   who,   as   per   the   Government

Order,  is  not   authorised.     Hence,  the   entire  case  of  the

prosecution  falls.   The aforesaid argument  has  not  been

considered either by the trial Court or by the High Court.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State

submitted   that   the   appellants   have   been   found   in

unauthorized possession of the gas cylinders.   They have

rightly been convicted.   Merely for some technical default,

they should not be allowed to go scot­free.   At that time,

there was a huge shortage of gas cylinders and Order  was

issued   to   check   its   black   marketing   and   unauthorised

possession.

5

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the relevant referred record.  

13.  The facts in the case as noticed above as such,

are not in dispute.  The only argument raised is about the

power of the person who had seized cylinder on the basis of

which   the   appellants   were   prosecuted.     Clause   7   of   the

Order, which is reproduced hereunder, prescribes officers

who have the power.

“ 7. Power of entry, search and seizure:­

(1) an officer or the Department of Food and Civil

Supplies of the Government, not  below the rank

of  an Inspector authorised 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   this   Order,   for   the   purpose   of   satisfying

herself   that   this   order   or   any   order   made

thereunder has been complied with: 

(a) Stop   and   search   any   vessel   or   vehicle

which the Officer has reason to believe has

6

been, or is being or is about to be, used in

the contravention of this Order;

(b) Enter or search any place with such aid or

assistance as may be necessary;

(c) Seize   and   remove   with   such   aid   or

assistance   as   may   be   necessary   ,   the

entire   quantity   of   any   stock   of   liquefied

petroleum gas in cylinders, cylinder valves

and   pressure   regulators,   alongwith   the

vehicles, vessels or any other conveyances

used   in   carrying     such   stock   if   he   has

reason to suspect that any provision of this

Order has been or is being or is about to

be, contravened in respect of such stock

and thereafter take or authorise the taking

of all measures necessary for securing the

production   of   the   stock   of   liquefied

petroleum gas in cylinder, cylinders, gas

cylinder   valves,   pressure   regulators,

vehicles, vessels or other conveyances so

seized   before   the   Collector   having

jurisdiction under the provisions of section

of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10

of 1955) and for their safe custody pending

such production……”

7

14. It nowhere prescribes that a Sub­Inspector of the

Police   can   take   action.     No   doubt,   the   aforesaid   Clause

provides   that   in   addition   to   the   specified   officers,   the

persons authorised by the Central or State Government may

take action under the Order.   However, nothing has been

placed on record to support the argument that the SubInspector of the Police was authorised to take action under

the aforesaid Order.   

15. It is a settled law 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.   Other methods are necessarily forbidden.

Reference can be made to  Dharani  Sugars and Chemicals

Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC

480. 

16. 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.

8

17. For   the   reasons   mentioned   above,   the   appeal   is

allowed.     The   judgment   by   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   &

Haryana   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   562­SB   of   1997   dated

January 15, 2010 and the order dated 08.07.1997 passed by

the Trial Court are set aside.  As a consequence, the conviction

and sentence of the appellants under Section 7 of the Act is set

aside.  The bail bond stands discharged.

…………………J.

                                                         [Abhay S. Oka]

…….……………J.

     [Rajesh Bindal]

New Delhi 

23.03.2023.