A criminal conviction for contravening regulatory statutes requires the prosecution to establish the violation of a specific control order beyond reasonable doubt. Without identifying the precise breach and providing proof of the necessary mental element, such a conviction is legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. The record has been perused.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant, Pitambar Das, against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Budaun, in Special Trial Case No. 8 of 1987 ( State vs. Pitambar Das ), whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Sections 3 /7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. The basic prosecution case is that the accused, Pitambar Das, was challenged by the police of Bisauli to stand trial for the offence punishable under Sections 3 /7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as the “Act, 1955”), on the allegation that he was storing 12 quintals of wheat for illegal purposes. This was detected during an inspection conducted by Sri S.P. Dasmana, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bisauli, on 30.05.1984 at the Purchasing Centre of the U.P. Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Purchasing Centre”).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Section 3 of the Act, 1955, which reads as follows:

“3. Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities.—

(1) If the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, or for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations, it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply, and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein.”

4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the aforesaid provision is merely an enabling provision and there must be a control order in force. It is argued that only in the event of a violation of such control order can any person be arraigned as an accused. However, in the present case, the prosecution has neither referred to any control order nor provided details of any alleged violation thereof by the appellant/accused. It is further submitted that it is an admitted position that the appellant was only the in-charge of the purchasing centre and was not a licence holder; therefore, the question of violation of any control order does not arise.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is no reference to any control order or its violation either in the prosecution case or in the judgment passed by the learned trial court. He has next submitted that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to do so.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Section 7 of the Act, 1955, which provides for penalties in cases of contravention of any order made under Section 3 .

7. It is contended that Section 7 is attracted only when there is a violation of a control order or any provision made under Section 3 of the Act, 1955. In the present case, no such violation has been established against the appellant/accused; therefore, the question of invoking Section 7 does not arise.

8. It has further been argue