The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of two appellants prosecuted under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, holding that cement was no longer subject to statutory control on the date of the alleged offence in 1994.
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan held that following the Cement Control (Amendment) Order, 1989 and subsequent notifications, price and distribution control over cement had been withdrawn with effect from March 1, 1989. Therefore, no subsisting control order existed in 1994 whose violation could attract penal consequences under Section 7 of the EC Act.
The court, thus, held that “both the trial Court and the High Court failed to examine the legal effect of decontrol and proceeded solely on an appreciation of evidence, ignoring the absence of a statutory foundation for the offence. Such an approach strikes at the root of the conviction and renders the same unsustainable in law.”
The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for allegedly purchasing and storing government quota cement meant for public works with the intent to sell at higher prices. The trial court sentenced them to one year’s rigorous imprisonment, which was affirmed by the Bombay High Court.
However, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any operative order under Section 3 of the EC Act on the date of the incident, the prosecution itself was “wholly misconceived.”
Referring to Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 536, the Court reiterated that where a statutory provision is omitted without a saving clause, proceedings founded on such provision cannot survive.
While allowing the appeals, the Court clarified that although prosecution under the EC Act was legally untenable, diversion or dishonest dealing of government-supplied cement could still attract penal consequences under the Indian Penal Code, depending on evidence. However, such charges had not been invoked in the present case.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, cancelled the bail bonds, and directed the refund of the fine amount, if paid.
Appearances
Appellants- Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Faisal Sherwani , AOR Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Samarjit G Pattnaik, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Vutts, Adv. Ms. Kashish Seth, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Rumwal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Totala, Adv.
Respondents- Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
