2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
NARESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CR.R/4173/2013

Proceedings under the Kerosene Control Order are void if search and seizure are conducted by an unauthorized officer. Conviction under the Essential Commodities Act requires proof that the accused is a dealer and that the seized substance strictly meets the statutory BIS specifications.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3, 7 and 8 - Kerosene (Restriction of Use and Fixation of Prices Order), 1993 - Search and Seizure - Power to conduct search and seizure under Clause 9 of the Control Order is vested only in specifically notified officers of the Food and Supplies Department or authorized officers of Government Oil Companies - A Sub-Inspector of Police, not being a notified authority under the Central Government's notification, is not empowered to conduct such search and seizure - Proceedings initiated by an unauthorized officer are without jurisdiction and must be struck down (Paras 26, 27).

(B) Kerosene Control Order - Applicability - The order primarily regulates dealers; mere possession or transportation of kerosene by a person who is not a dealer and is not engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale does not necessarily attract penal provisions under Section 7 of the Act (Paras 22-25).

(C) Expert Evidence - Forensic Science Laboratory Report - To establish that a substance is "kerosene" under the Control Order, the laboratory report must confirm that the sample meets the specific BIS specifications (IS-1459 of 1974) regarding flash point and smoke point - Mere observation of blue dye used for public distribution is insufficient to prove the substance falls within the purview of the Order (Paras 28-30).

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction - Revisional Court is not an appellate court and cannot reappreciate evidence unless there is perversity, illegality, or a patent jurisdictional error (Paras 10-17).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were intercepted while transporting 250 litres of kerosene oil in a vehicle. They failed to produce a permit for the transportation. The substance was analyzed by a forensic laboratory and found to contain blue dye, indicating it was meant for the Public Distribution System. While the supplier was acquitted by the trial court, the petitioners were convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act. This conviction was subsequently upheld by the appellate court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the search and seizure were conducted by a police officer who lacked the statutory authority under the Kerosene Control Order. Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioners were dealers or were conducting business in kerosene. The laboratory report was also found deficient as it did not verify the BIS specifications of the seized oil.

Issues: Whether the transportation of kerosene oil by a non-dealer constitutes an offence under the Essential Commodities Act and whether search and seizure conducted by a Sub-Inspector of Police is valid under the Kerosene Control Order.

Ratio Decidendi: Search and seizure under the Kerosene Control Order must be performed strictly by authorized officers as notified by the Central Government; failure to do so renders the proceedings unauthorized. Furthermore, for a conviction under Section 7 of the Act, it must be proved that the accused is a dealer or is engaged in the business of kerosene, and the expert evidence must provide the scientific data necessary to satisfy the statutory specifications of the controlled commodity.

Result: Revision allowed; judgments and order of the lower courts set aside; accused acquitted.