scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeJudiciarySC overturns 26-yr-old blackmarketing conviction on procedural lapse ignored by lower courts

SC overturns 26-yr-old blackmarketing conviction on procedural lapse ignored by lower courts

In 1997, a trial court convicted a few people for 'unauthorised possession' of gas cylinders. The order was upheld by Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2010, but overturned by SC in March.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

New Delhi: A 26-year-old conviction in an alleged case of LPG blackmarketing was set aside by the Supreme Court last month, after it found the two courts below — a high court and a trial court, had overlooked procedural lapses in the case and held the accused guilty

In 1997, a trial court had convicted a man — identified as Avtar Singh in court documents — and a few others for “unauthorised possession” of gas cylinders. The verdict was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2010.

However, a division bench of the Supreme Court, in an order passed on 23 March and made public this week, overturned the verdict over the question of the sub-inspector, who had seized the cylinders, not being authorised to do so.

“In the case in hand, the action has been taken by the sub-inspector of the police who, as per the government order, is not authorised. Hence, the entire case of the prosecution falls. The aforesaid argument has not been considered either by the trial court or by the high court,” held the division bench of justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal.

The verdict added: “It is a settled law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are necessarily forbidden.”

The SC’s judgment was based on clause 7 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988, which authorised only those holding certain positions and ranks to stop and search any vessel or vehicle that was believed to have been or was being or was about to be used in contravention of the order.

The 1988 order has since been repealed and replaced with subsequent regulations, but that does not impact previous operations under it.

According to the SC verdict, the sole argument of the appellants’ counsel hinged on the fact that the sub-inspector who had seized the cylinders was not authorised to do so under the 1988 order.

The apex court observed that the only charge that could be proved was unauthorised possession of gas cylinders on the basis of which the trial court convicted the appellants and ordered imprisonment for a period of 6 months, along with a fine of Rs 500 per person.

The state counsel (prosecution) argued that the convicts should not be allowed to go free merely for some technical default, adding that they were indeed found in unauthorised possession of the gas cylinders for which they were rightly convicted. The SC acknowledged that those facts were not in dispute, but laid emphasis on the need to take into account whether that officer had the very power to carry out such an exercise.


Also read: SC wants to replace ‘sealed cover’ with ‘public-interest immunity’. All about new procedure


‘No proof of authority’

According to court documents, in February 1995, the sub-inspector in question, along with other police officers, apprehended Avtar Singh and others with their truck in Phagwara, after the police received “secret” and “reliable” information that they were indulging in blackmarketing of gas cylinders at Rs 250, instead of the approved rate of Rs 102 per cylinder.

In the trial court, however, none of the independent witnesses or the alleged buyers of the cylinders supported the case of the prosecution. Only two official witnesses deposed in favour of the prosecution. The only charge that could be proved was unauthorised possession of gas cylinders, on the basis of which the trial court convicted the appellants and the HC upheld it.

The SC noted, however, that clause 7 of the 1988 order stated that the power to stop or search any vessel or vehicle or seize the entire quantity of any stock of LPG cylinders and its accessories, including the vehicles used to carry such stock, was restricted to certain people.

According to the order, an officer of the government’s department of food and civil Supplies, not below the rank of an inspector, authorised by that government and notified by the central government, or any officer not below the rank of a sales officer of an oil company, had the power to carry out such a seizure.

The officer could also be a person authorised by the central government or a state government and notified by the central government, with a view to ensuring compliance with the provisions of the order.

Citing this, the SC said it was nowhere prescribed that a sub-inspector of police could take action.

Observing that the clause did provide that, in addition to the specified officers, those authorised by the central or state governments could take similar action, the court said nothing had been placed on record to support the argument that the sub-inspector was given the authority to take action under the order.

The SC thus concluded that in the absence of the authority and power of the sub-inspector to take action, the proceedings initiated by him will be held to be totally unauthorised and “have to be struck down”.

(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)


Also read: Women officers move SC over ‘continued discrimination’ in Army, ‘substandard’ appointments


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular