The Rajasthan High Court set aside a conviction that had stood for nearly twenty-seven years under the Essential Commodities Act on the ground that gas regulators cannot be treated as “essential commodities” in the absence of a specific statutory notification classifying them as such. The bench of Justice Farjand Ali examined the case of an appellant who had been convicted in 1998 for possession of thirty-eight gas regulators without a valid licence, which was alleged to be in contravention of the Essential Commodities Act. The conviction had been challenged on multiple grounds, including procedural irregularities and a plea of parity with another case where a person found in possession of three gas regulators had been acquitted. The appellant argued that he should have received similar treatment, while the State contended that the difference in quantity of regulators found justified divergent outcomes.
Upon hearing the parties, the Court observed that only those commodities that are either expressly listed in the schedule to the Essential Commodities Act or specifically notified by the Central Government can be treated as essential commodities subject to the Act’s provisions. The prosecution in the present case had failed to produce any statutory document or notification establishing that gas regulators were covered by the Essential Commodities Act at the material time. The Court reasoned that a gas regulator, being an accessory or appliance used in conjunction with liquefied petroleum gas, did not, by itself, qualify as an essential commodity in the absence of a legislative or executive mandate designating it as such.
The High Court noted that without clear legislative backing, the very foundation of the prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act was legally unsustainable, as the Act’s application presupposes that the commodity in question has been brought within the ambit of essential commodities by law. The Court further held that in such circumstances, the number of gas regulators recovered from the appellant’s possession was immaterial when the essential character of the commodity itself remained unestablished by statutory notification. The distinction based on quantity, urged by the State, was thus regarded as having little relevance when the essential nature of the item was doubtful.
In addition to the statutory issue, the Court took note of procedural irregularities in the prosecution’s case, concluding that the conviction was vitiated not only by a fundamental legal misconception but also by serious evidentiary deficiencies. The appellant’s challenge highlighted these defects in the process adopted during the original prosecution, and the Court found these concerns to further support the conclusion that the conviction could not be sustained. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, emphasizing that in the absence of legislative or executive backing classifying gas regulators as essential commodities, application of the Essential Commodities Act to such items was legally untenable. The judgment reflects the necessity for clear statutory notification before invoking regulatory controls and criminal sanctions under the Essential Commodities Act for specific items not inherently covered within its scope.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.