1. Transportation of kerosene oil meant for Public Distribution System — Conviction under Essential Commodities Act challenged. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
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
Important Points
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.
Subject
Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act
Act Referred
Essential Commodities Act: S.3, S.7, S.8
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.313, S.397, S.401, S.437-A, S.100
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.481
Kerosene (Restriction of Use and Fixation of Prices Order), 1993: O.3, O.4, O.5, O.6, O.7, O.9, O.9(a), O.9(b), O.2(e)
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.313, S.397, S.401, S.437-A, S.100
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.481
Kerosene (Restriction of Use and Fixation of Prices Order), 1993: O.3, O.4, O.5, O.6, O.7, O.9, O.9(a), O.9(b), O.2(e)
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.
(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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Petitioner Advocates:Meera Devi Tijender Singh Shivam Gautam Tijender Singh ,Respondent Advocate: AG
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued mere possession of kerosene not an offence; State argued violation of control order due to lack of permit. (Para 10 , 12 )
3. Revision allowed — Conviction set aside — Accused acquitted — Judgments of lower courts found to suffer from jurisdictional error. (Para 32 )
4. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC in a criminal revision against conviction?
The revisional court can only rectify patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law, and cannot reappreciate evidence in the absence of perversity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
5. Does the Kerosene Control Order, 1993 apply to a consumer in possession of kerosene oil?
No, the Control Order applies to dealers, not consumers. A consumer can only be held liable if found to be doing business in kerosene. (Para 22 )
6. Who is empowered to conduct searches and seizures under the Kerosene Control Order, 1993?
Only officers of the Food and Civil Supplies Department not below Inspector rank, or officers authorized and notified by the Central Government, have such power. (Para 26 , 27 )
7. Can a police officer like a Sub-Inspector conduct a seizure under the Kerosene Control Order, 1993 without being authorized?
No, a Sub-Inspector of Police is not empowered to act under the Order unless specifically authorized, and proceedings initiated by an unauthorized officer are void. (Para 27 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of a forensic report that does not specify the BIS specifications for kerosene?
A report that fails to mention the substance met the required BIS specifications for flash and smoke points is insufficient to prove the substance falls under the Control Order. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
2026:HHC:20067
Cr. Revision No. 4173 of 2013
Reserved on: 22.04.2026
Date of Decision: 26.05.2026.
Naresh Kumar & another ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. r ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No
For the P etitioner : M/s Tajender Singh and Shivam h Gautam, Advocates.
For the respondent/State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hamirpur (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2011 and order of sentence dated 11.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur (learned Trial Court) were upheld.
(The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
Briefly stated, the facts giving Hrise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 , 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act (EC Act). It was asserted that SI Sohan Lal (PW15), ASI Prakash Chand (PW1), HC Mehar Singh, and Constable Rajesh Kumar were present at Mandi Chowk on the intervening night of 18/19.10.2006. A Jeep bearing registration No. HP- 22A-3275 came from Bijhari towards Dakota at about 1:20 a.m. The police signalled the driver to stop the Jeep for checking its documents. Two people were travelling in the Jeep. The driver identified himself as Purshotam Singh, and another person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Naresh Kumar. Five plastic canisters were loaded into the Jeep. The police checked the canisters and found 250 litres of kerosene oil in them. The police demanded a permit for transporting the kerosene oil, but the accused could not produce any documents. One bottle was taken from each of the canisters for analysis. The sample bottle and the canisters were sealed with seal ‘T’. The seal impression (Ext. PX) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. The Jeep, plastic canisters and the documents were seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/A). The police prepared a rukka (Ext.PW15/D) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW15/B) was registered. Inspector Sohan Lal (PW15) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW15/A). Ram Kumar produced the stock register (Ext.P1), consumption register (Ext.P2), a register (Ext.P3), bills (Ext.P4u and Ext.P5), a letter (Ext.PW11/A), and an authorisation (Ext.PW11/B), which were seized vide memo (Ext.PW4/CA). The samples were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), and a report (Ext.PW15/F) was issued mentioning that the samples contained kerosene with blue dye meant for distribution by the Public Distribution System. It was Hfound after the investigation that the kerosene oil was supplied by Krishna Oil Company on 28.09.2006 vide bill No. 2378 to the accused Ram Kumar, who was running a depot. Hence, a charge sheet was filed before the Court against Ram Kumar, Purshotam Singh and Naresh Kumar.
The learned Trial Court found sufÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) read with Section 3 (2) (d) of the EC Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution examined 20 wHitnesses to prove its case. ASI Prakash Chand (PW1) and ASI Mehar Singh (PW3) are the witnesses to the recovery. Yashpal (PW2), Ashok Kumar (PW4), Madan Lal (PW5), Jagbir Singh (PW6), Lakha Ram (PW7), Dalip Singh (PW8), Bhishambar Dutt (PW9), Taro Devi (PW10), Saroti Devi (PW12), Rala Ram (PW13), Purshotam Singh (PW16) and Indri Devi (PW18) did not support the prosecution's case. Pratap Singh (PW11) proved the authorisation letter. Bariyam Singh
