Manoj vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Held: By notification dated 24.11.1962, cement was declared an “essential commodity” u/s.2(a) of the E.C. Act, thereby subjecting it to statutory control in public interest – In exercise of powers conferred u/s. 3 of the E.C. Act, the Central Government promulgated the Cement Control Order, 1967, which laid down an exhaustive framework for regulation of production, supply, distribution and pricing of cement – In terms of s.5 of the E.C. Act, the Central Government delegated its powers in respect of cement being a commodity other than foodstuffs to the State Governments – Pursuant thereto, the State of Maharashtra issued the Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 – Subsequently, by S.O. 168(E) dated 01.03.1989, the Central Government substantially withdrew price and distribution control over cement and deleted several operative clauses of the Cement Control Order, 1967 – Further, by notification dated 07.08.1990, the delegation of powers to the State Government to regulate retail distribution of cement through licenses or permit was expressly rescinded – In the present case, the alleged offence is stated to have occurred on 24.03.1994 – On that date, neither the Cement Control Order, 1967 nor the Maharashtra State licensing regime under the 1973 Order operated so as to attract penal consequences u/s.7 of the E.C. Act – Significantly, the prosecution has failed to place on record any subsisting control order, notification, or statutory restriction in force on the relevant date – Therefore, the prosecution launched against the appellants under the E.C. Act was wholly misconceived – Both the trial Court and the High Court failed to examine the legal effect of decontrol and proceeded solely on an appreciation of evidence, ignoring the absence of a statutory foundation for the offence – The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside. [Paras 15.1, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 16, 17, 28]

Penal Code, 1860 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.222 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.245 – Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – s.3 r/w. s.7 – Lapse in investigation – Failure of investigating agency to invoke appropriate provisions of Penal Code, 1860:

Held: Both the trial Court and the High Court held that the appellants failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation or documentary justification for possession of cement bags – These findings are essentially factual and are supported by the evidence on record– In the absence of any subsisting statutory order u/s.3 of the E.C. Act on the date of the alleged occurrence, a conviction u/s.7 thereof is legally impermissible – This was a case where the investigating agency ought to have invoked appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected – In a given case, where the facts proved disclose commission of a minor offence, the trial Court is empowered u/s.222 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 245 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to record a conviction for such minor offence even in the absence of a specific charge, provided the essential ingredients thereof are established beyond reasonable doubt and no prejudice is caused to the accused – The prosecution, however, did not culminate in any such exercise, nor can the High Court, in an appeal against conviction under a distinct statutory offence, substitute the conviction by invoking provisions of the Indian Penal Code for the first time – The lapse, therefore, lies squarely at the door of the investigating agency. [Paras 25, 26, 27]