- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi v. State Of M.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was convicted for an alleged offence under Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Sessions Judge, Vidisha convicted him in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1996 and imposed a sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2000. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench (Single Judge) confirmed the conviction and sentence by the impugned judgment. In the present appeal, an issue was raised which, according to the Court, had not been canvassed before the courts below.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 requires proof of contravention of an “order” made under Section 3, and whether reliance on the Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Purti Vitaran Scheme, 1991 satisfies that requirement.
- Whether the conviction can stand when the allegedly contravened “order” was not placed on record before the trial court or the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- For attracting Section 7 of the Act, the primary requirement is violation of an “order”.
- The prosecution appears to have relied on the Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Purti Vitaran Scheme, 1991.
- The Scheme cannot be equated with an “order” as required under the Act.
Respondent State's Arguments
- The plea raised by the appellant would require factual adjudication.
- This plea was not canvassed before either the trial court or the High Court.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| M.P Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P (1981) 4 SCC 535 | A scheme like the one in question is framed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. | The Court relied on this observation to emphasize that, for action under Section 7 (contravention of an order made under Section 3), the prosecution needed to place on record the relevant “order” forming the foundation of the case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that, although the State’s objection had substance (that the new plea was not raised below and could involve factual adjudication), Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is attracted only upon contravention of an “order” made under Section 3. The Court observed that neither the trial court nor the High Court had any effort made to place on record the “order” whose violation was alleged.
Referring to M.P Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P, the Court noted that a scheme like the one relied upon is framed under Article 162 of the Constitution. In this context, it considered it necessary for the prosecution to place before the court the “order” that constituted the foundation for initiating action against the appellant.
The Court further explained the statutory framework: Section 7 refers to contravention of any order made under Section 3; therefore, application of Section 7 requires showing (i) an order has been made under Section 3 and (ii) it has been contravened. Section 3 concerns powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities, and such powers can be exercised by “order”. It also noted the definitions: under Section 2(c), “notified order” means an order notified in the Official Gazette, and under Section 2(cc), “order” includes a direction issued thereunder.
In these circumstances, and without expressing any view on the merits, the Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh hearing, permitting both parties to place materials in support of their respective stands, and making it incumbent upon the State to produce materials showing which “order” was violated. If the relevant document is placed before the High Court, the issue was directed to be examined with reference to it and adjudicated accordingly.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF (REMITTED): The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter to the High Court to hear it afresh, without expressing any opinion on the merits or on the appellant’s culpability.
The direct consequence is that the High Court must conduct a fresh adjudication, during which the parties may file additional materials, and the State must specifically show which “order” under Section 3 was allegedly violated. The appellant’s bail granted by the Supreme Court was directed to continue until the High Court completes the fresh adjudication. The opinion does not indicate that any broader precedent was newly set beyond directing compliance with the statutory requirement of proving contravention of an “order” for Section 7 proceedings.
Arijit Pasayat, J. Leave granted.
2. An interesting point has been raised in the appeal, which unfortunately does not appear to have been canvassed before the courts below. The appellant was convicted for allegedly committing offence in terms of Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(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 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2000 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.
3. 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 the 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.
4. 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 M.P Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P (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 (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.
5. 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 2(cc) provides that “order” includes a direction issued thereunder.
6. 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 materials 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.
7. 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.
8. We make it clear that by giving this direction, no opinion about his culpability or otherwise is expressed by us.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert