Sunil Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
1 MCRC-40637-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 24 OF JUNE, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40637 of 2023
SUNIL KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Achyut Govindam Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Nalini Gurang - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
Heard on IA No. 541/2024, an application to withdraw the petition.
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw said I.A.
Accordingly, I.A No. 541/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Now with the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.
4. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for
quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No.155/2023 dated
29.05.2023 registered at Police Station Sanjeevani Nagar, District Jabalpur
for the offences punishable under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, together with
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the charge-sheet
filed before the competent Criminal Court.
5 . The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.05.2023, Sub-Inspector
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
2 MCRC-40637-2023
Sachin Verma of Police Station Sanjeevani Nagar was on routine patrolling

duty along with the police staff. During patrolling, a secret informer
informed the police party that a person was standing near the servant quarters
on the roadside with a loading auto and was illegally transferring Liquefied
Petroleum Gas (LPG) from filled domestic cylinders into empty cylinders
with the help of a nozzle pipe. Acting upon the said information, the police
associated two independent witnesses, namely Neeraj Kori and Santosh alias
Golu Samad, and proceeded to the place indicated by the informer. Upon
reaching the spot, the police allegedly found one person standing near a
loading auto bearing Registration No. MP-20-LA-6602. It is alleged that the
said person was clandestinely transferring LPG from one gas cylinder to
another through an iron nozzle pipe while attempting to conceal himself
behind the vehicle.
6. The police apprehended the said person, who disclosed his identity as
Sunil Kushwaha, son of Mangaldin Kushwaha, aged about 48 years, resident
of behind Ganesh Mandapam, Police Station Lordganj, District Jabalpur. A
spot panchnama was prepared in the presence of the independent witnesses
and photographs of the spot were taken. Since no weighing scale was
available at the place of occurrence, Constable No.2352 Ajay Yadav was
deputed to bring an electronic weighing scale from the police station. After
the weighing scale was brought, the LPG cylinders found in the loading auto
as well as those lying on the ground were weighed. According to the
prosecution, out of a total of twenty-eight Bharat Gas cylinders recovered
from the possession of the petitioner, seven cylinders were found to contain
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
3 MCRC-40637-2023
approximately 1 to 1.5 kilograms less LPG than the prescribed quantity. A

separate weighing panchnama was prepared recording the said
measurements.
The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner was illegally decanting
LPG from one cylinder to another in violation of the provisions of the
Essential Commodities Act and the orders issued thereunder. Consequently,
twenty-eight LPG cylinders, one iron nozzle pipe, one spring weighing
machine and the loading auto bearing Registration No. MP-20-LA-6602
were seized from the possession of the petitioner under a seizure memo
prepared in the presence of the witnesses.
7. Since the alleged offences were punishable with imprisonment
extending to less than seven years, the Investigating Officer served the
petitioner with a notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure requiring his appearance during investigation instead of effecting
his arrest. During investigation, the seized articles were deposited in the
police malkhana, a spot map was prepared, statements of the witnesses,
namely Neeraj Kori, Santosh alias Golu Samad and Constable Ajay Yadav
were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and a communication was
addressed to the District Magistrate seeking confiscation of the seized
vehicle. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer found
sufficient material against the petitioner for offences punishable under
Section 285 IPC and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and
accordingly filed Charge-sheet No.174/2023 dated 07.07.2023 before the
jurisdictional Magistrate, where the criminal case is presently pending.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
4 MCRC-40637-2023
Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the continuation of the criminal

proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire
criminal proceedings are vitiated for want of jurisdiction, as the search,
seizure and investigation have been conducted by a Sub-Inspector of Police,
who was not competent under law to exercise such powers. It is contended
that Clause 13 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and
Distribution) Order, 2000 authorizes only an officer of the Central
Government or the State Government not below the rank of an Inspector,
who has been duly authorized by the Government, to enter, search and seize
any premises or articles for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the
LPG Order. Since the present search and seizure have been conducted by a
Sub-Inspector without any authorization under the LPG Order, the entire
action is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, rendering the FIR liable to
be quashed.
9 . It is further submitted that the prosecution has not produced any
notification or order issued either by the Central Government or the State
Government authorizing the Investigating Officer to exercise powers under
the LPG Order, 2000. In absence of such authorization, the police authorities
lacked competence to conduct search, seizure or initiate criminal proceedings
under the Essential Commodities Act.
10. It is next contended that initiation of prosecution under Sections 3 and 7
of the Essential Commodities Act is legally unsustainable as neither the FIR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
5 MCRC-40637-2023
nor the charge-sheet specifies the particular provision of any Control Order

allegedly violated by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that Section 3
of the Essential Commodities Act merely empowers the Government to issue
Control Orders and Section 7 provides punishment for contravention thereof.
Unless the prosecution specifically alleges violation of a particular clause of
the LPG Order, 2000 or any other Control Order issued under Section 3 of
the Act, no offence under Section 7 can be said to have been made out. Mere
reference to Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, without
specifying the precise statutory provision violated, is insufficient in law. It is
also argued that the weighing of LPG cylinders by the police itself is
contrary to law. According to the petitioner, under the Legal Metrology Act,
2009 and the rules framed thereunder, verification of weights and measures
can only be undertaken by duly authorized Legal Metrology Officers. The
police authorities possess no statutory authority either to verify the weight of
LPG cylinders or to certify any alleged deficiency therein. Consequently, the
alleged weighing exercise undertaken by the police cannot constitute
admissible or reliable material for prosecution.
11. Learned counsel further submits that even according to the prosecution,
the alleged shortage in the cylinders has not been accurately determined. The
seizure memo and the FIR merely mention that there was an approximate
variation of 1 to 1.5 kilograms without recording the exact weight of each
cylinder or the actual quantity of LPG allegedly transferred. Such vague
allegations, according to the petitioner, clearly demonstrate that the
prosecution case is based upon conjectures and assumptions rather than
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
6 MCRC-40637-2023
scientific determination.

12. It is lastly submitted that no ingredient of the offence punishable under
Section 285 IPC is disclosed from the allegations contained in the FIR. The
petitioner has not committed any rash or negligent act so as to endanger
human life or personal safety. The continuation of criminal proceedings
would therefore amount to abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to
be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1 3 . Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State opposed the petition and supported the registration of the
FIR as well as the investigation conducted by the police. It is submitted that
acting upon credible information received from a reliable source, the police
reached the spot and found the petitioner red-handed while transferring LPG
from one domestic gas cylinder to another through an iron nozzle pipe. The
incriminating articles, including twenty-eight LPG cylinders, the nozzle pipe
and the loading vehicle used in commission of the offence, were recovered
and seized from the possession of the petitioner in the presence of
independent witnesses. It is contended that during investigation, statements
of the seizure witnesses were recorded and sufficient material was collected
to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the
alleged offences. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has
already been filed before the competent Court. The correctness, reliability
and evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation are
matters to be adjudicated during trial and cannot be examined in proceedings
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
7 MCRC-40637-2023
14. Learned Panel Lawyer further submits that the allegations contained in

the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose
commission of cognizable offences under Section 285 IPC and Sections 3
and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner seeks to raise
disputed questions of fact regarding the legality of the search, seizure,
weighing process and alleged procedural irregularities, which require
appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition is devoid of
merit and deserves to be dismissed.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused
the case diary.
16. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the prosecution under
Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is wholly without
jurisdiction as the FIR has been registered by the police on its own without
following the statutory procedure prescribed under the Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000.
17. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that except making a bald
reference to Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the
prosecution has nowhere specified as to which particular provision or clause
of any Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act has allegedly been violated by the petitioner. It is well settled that
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act is merely an enabling provision
empowering the appropriate Government to issue Control Orders, whereas
Section 7 provides punishment for contravention of such Orders. Unless the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
8 MCRC-40637-2023
prosecution specifically alleges violation of a particular clause of the relevant

Control Order, the basic ingredients constituting an offence under Section 7
of the Act remain absent.
18. Further, Clause 13 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of
Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 contemplates that the power of search
and seizure is to be exercised by an officer duly authorized by the Central
Government or the State Government not below the prescribed rank. In the
present case, admittedly the raid, search and seizure were conducted by Sub-
Inspector Sachin Verma. The respondents have neither placed on record any
notification issued by the Central Government or the State Government
authorizing the said officer to exercise powers under the LPG Order, 2000
nor demonstrated that the mandatory statutory requirements stood complied
with.
19. It is also not in dispute that the FIR was registered by the police on its
own and the investigation under the Essential Commodities Act was initiated
without obtaining prior permission or authorization contemplated under the
statutory scheme governing enforcement of the LPG Order. The prosecution
has also failed to establish that the proceedings under the Essential
Commodities Act were initiated in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the Control Order. Consequently, the very foundation of the
prosecution under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act stands
vitiated. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that continuation
of criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the offences punishable
under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 would
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
9 MCRC-40637-2023
amount to abuse of the process of law and would result in miscarriage of

justice.
20. However, the position with regard to the offence punishable under
Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code stands on a different footing. The FIR
specifically alleges that the petitioner was transferring LPG from one
domestic cylinder to another through a nozzle pipe on a public road. The
allegation further indicates that such decanting of highly inflammable LPG
was being carried out in an open public place. At this stage, the Court is only
required to examine whether the allegations, if accepted at their face value,
disclose commission of an offence. Section 285 IPC penalizes any rash or
negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter so as to
endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
Transfer of LPG from one cylinder to another on a public road, if proved, is
prima facie capable of endangering the life and safety of passers-by and
other members of the public. Whether the petitioner actually committed the
offence and whether the prosecution succeeds in establishing the ingredients
thereof are matters to be determined during trial on the basis of evidence. At
this stage, it cannot be held that the FIR does not disclose the commission of
an offence under Section 285 IPC.
21. The statutory safeguards and procedural restrictions incorporated in the
regulatory framework governing the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and
the LPG Control Order are intended to ensure fairness, accountability and
adherence to the rule of law. They cannot, however, be construed in a
manner that transforms them into a shield for conduct which poses an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
10 MCRC-40637-2023
imminent threat to public safety. The law does not contemplate a situation

where procedural limitations render the police a helpless spectator while a
cognizable offence endangering human life is being committed in a public
place. The allegations in the present case disclose that the petitioner was
transferring highly inflammable Liquefied Petroleum Gas from one cylinder
to another on a public road. Such an activity is inherently hazardous and
fraught with grave risk, for a single spark, a momentary lapse, or even an
unforeseen act of negligence may trigger an explosion or fire, imperiling not
only the person undertaking the act but every innocent passer-by in the
vicinity. The right of an individual to carry on any activity cannot extend to
exposing the lives and safety of the public to such peril. Where the
Legislature has, by enacting Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code, made rash
or negligent handling of combustible matter a cognizable penal offence, the
police cannot be denuded of their statutory obligation to intervene merely
because the same act may also amount to a contravention of a regulatory
order under another enactment.
2 2 . Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
the proceedings insofar as they relate to the offence punishable under Section
285 IPC.
23. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. The First Information
Report bearing Crime No.115/2023 registered at Police Station Sanjeevani
Nagar, District Jabalpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,
including the charge-sheet, are hereby quashed insofar as they relate to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53836
11 MCRC-40637-2023
offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities

Act, 1955. The prayer for quashment of the proceedings in respect of the
offence punishable under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is
rejected, as the allegations contained in the First Information Report, taken at
their face value, prima facie disclose commission of the said offence, which
shall be adjudicated by the trial Court on the basis of evidence led by the
parties. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined only to
the adjudication of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall
not be construed as an expression on the merits of the prosecution case
pending before the trial Court in respect of the offence under Section 285
IPC.
24. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
rv

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
18:20:40