The bench of justices A.S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal has recently held that "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. Reference can be made to  Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 480."

The observation of the Supreme Court came while setting aside a conviction order of the Punjab Court which the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed. The appellant in the present case was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for six months along with fine of Rs. 500 by the order of trial court dated 08.07.1997 for an offense committed on 26.02.1995 for illegally selling gas cylinder in black. They were charging Rs. 250 instead of Rs. 102/-.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Phagwara got information were transporting the gas cylinder in truck. FIR was lodged on the information being found reliable, barricading was done, and the appellants were caught. None of the prosecution witnesses supports the prosecution case.

The only charge which was proved by the prosecution was of unauthorized possession of gas cylinders on the basis of which the trial court convicted the appellants and ordered imprisonment.

It was argued by the appellant "that in terms of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 dated 08.03.1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Order’), entry and seizure should be in exercise of the powers under clause 7 of the Order.    Clause 7 of the Order authorises certain persons to stop and search any vessel or vehicle which the officer has reason to believe has been or is being or is about to be used in contravention of the order.

It was further argued that, "Clause 3 of the Order restricts unauthorised possession of gas cylinders.  The submission is that as per clause 7, an officer or the Department of Food and Civil Supplies of the Government, not   below the rank of   an Inspector authorised by such Government and notified by Central Government or any officer not below the rank of a Sales Officer of an Oil Company, or a person authorized by the Central Government or a State Government and notified by   the   Central   Government   may,   with   a   view   to   ensure
compliance with the provisions of the Order, for the purpose of satisfying himself that this order or any order made thereunder has been complied with, is authorised to carry out such exercise/seizure.

The Apex Court acquitted the appellants saying that under the provision of law, the SI was not authorized to conduct the search and seizure.

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1711 OF 2011
AVTAR SINGH & ANR.           
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB                             

Read the complete judgment on this link/tab