AVTAR SINGH vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

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’). Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.03.23 17:29:39 IST Reason: 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 Sub­ Inspector 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.