Supreme Court of India
Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004 AIR SCW 5334, 2004 (7) SCC 490, 2004 CRI. L. J. 4612, 2004 ALL MR(CRI) 3473, 2004 (2) FAC 117, 2004 (8) SCALE 95, 2004 SCC(CRI) 1966, 2004 (10) SRJ 108, 2004 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 884, 2004 CRILR(SC&MP) 884, (2004) 2 EFR 602, (2004) 2 FAC 117, (2004) 3 KER LT 761, (2005) 1 RAJ CRI C 92, (2004) 4 RECCRIR 407, (2004) 6 SUPREME 668, (2004) 3 ALLCRIR 2787, (2004) 8 SCALE 95, (2004) 3 CHANDCRIC 17, (2004) 4 CRIMES 83, (2004) 4 CURCRIR 85, (2004) 23 INDLD 55, (2004) 4 MPHT 303, 2005 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 8
Author: Arijit Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1011 of 2004 PETITIONER: PRAKASH BABU RAGHUVANSHI RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/09/2004 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 2004 Supp(4) SCR 390 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted.
An interesting point has been raised in the appeal, which unfortunately does not appear to nave been canvassed before the courts below. The appellant was convicted for allegedly committing offence in terms of Section 3 read with Section 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act'). He was found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1996. The conviction and the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 as had been imposed, came to be confirmed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bench by the impugned Judgment.
Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that for attracting Section-7 of the Act, the primary requirement is that there must be violation of an order. What the prosecution seems to have relied upon is Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Purti Vitaran Scheme, 1991 (in short the 'Scheme'). According to him, the Scheme cannot be equated with an order, as required under the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, submitted that such a plea which essentially would need factual adjudication, was not canvassed before either the Trial Court or the High Court.
Though there is substance in the plea raised by learned counsel for the State, yet, for bringing an application under Section 7 of the Act, the essential requirement is an order, the violation of which is alleged. Unfortunately, neither before the Trial Court nor the High Court, any effort was made to place on record the order the violation of which was alleged. In Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh Society and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 535, it was observed that a Scheme like the one at hand is framed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution'). That being so, it was necessary for the prosecution to place on record the "order" which, according to it, was the foundation for taking action against the accused-appellant.
Section 7 refers to contravention of any order made under Section 3. It is essential for bringing in application of Section 7 to show that some order has been made under Section 3 and the order has been contravened. Section 3 deals with powers to control production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities. Exercise of such powers, can be done by "order". According to Section 2(c) "notified order" means an order notified in the official Gazette, and Section (cc) provides that "order" includes a direction issued thereunder.
In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we remit the matter to the High Court to hear the matter afresh. The parties shall be permitted to place materials in support of their respective stands. It would be incumbent upon the State to file material to show as to which "order" was violated. If the document in question is placed before the High Court, it goes without saying that the issue shall be examined with reference thereto and necessary adjudication shall be done.
We are told that the accused-appellant has been in custody for nearly four months. The order of bail granted by this Court shall continue till the fresh adjudication is done by the High Court.
We make it clear that by giving this direction, no opinion about his culpability or otherwise is expressed by us.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.