Holding

Clause 13 of the Pondicherry Kerosene Control Order, 1969 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 apply only to the sale of kerosene, and without evidence of such sale the provisions cannot be invoked to convict the firm and its partner.

Summary

The case involved a partnership firm (A1) dealing in kerosene, its partner (A2), the driver (A3), cleaner (A4) and three retail dealers (A5‑A7). A tanker carrying 11,000 litres of kerosene was stopped at a Pondicherry check‑post and found empty. The driver gave an unsigned statement that he had sold the kerosene en route, a claim also made by the cleaner, but no receipt or other evidence of sale was produced. The trial court acquitted all accused for lack of proof; the Madras High Court convicted the firm and its partner under Clause 13 of the Pondicherry Kerosene Control Order, 1969 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the provisions apply only to the sale of kerosene, not to its purchase, and that an unsigned, uncorroborated statement cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Issues considered

Whether Clause 13 of the Pondicherry Kerosene Control Order, 1969 together with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is applicable to the accused firm and partner in the absence of proof of sale of kerosene.
Whether an unsigned statement made by the driver and cleaner can form the basis for conviction under the said provisions.

Legislation cited

Essential Commodities Act, 1955s. 7

Subjects

Essential Commodities ActKerosene Control Ordersale restrictionunsigned statementconvictionacquittalpartnership firmcriminal evidence

Judgment

(2008) 12 S.C.R. 892

A M/S. IPOUR GKC & RKC & SONS & ANR. r
v.
STATE REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PONDICHERRY & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2001)
B AUGUST 28, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM )....

SHARMA, JJ.]

c Pondicherry Kerosene Control Order, 1969/Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 - Clause 131 s. 7 - Violation of the
provisions - Vehicle reporting carrying kerosene for the
accused firm found empty at check-post...:. Driver and cleaner
of the vehicle stated to have sold the kerosene on the way -
Prosecution of the firm, its partner, driver, cleaner and retail
D
dealers on the basis of the statement - Trial court acquitting
?
all the accused - High Court convicting the firm and its partner
- On appeal, held: The provisions are not. applicable to the ~

present case so as to warrant conviction of the firm and its
partner.
E
Seven accused were charged for having violated
Clause 13 of Pondicherry Kerosene Control Order, 1969.
Appellant-A1 was a partnership firm-wholesale dealer of
kerosene. Appellant-A2 was. the partner of the firm, A3
F and A4 were the driver and cleaner respectively of the
vehicle in which the kerosene was being imported to A·1
-L '·
I
firm. AS, AG and A7 were the retail dealers of kerosene.
According to prosecution, the v~hicle reporting
import of 11,000 litres of kerosene, when was stopped
G and checked at the checkpost, it was found empty.
Statement of A3 (driver) was recorded to the effect that he + .\,
had sold the oil on the way. The statement, however, was
not signed by him. Prosecution was initiated. Trial court
acquitted all the accused. High Court convicted A1-firm
H 392

T
M/S. !POUR GKC & RKC & SONS & ANR. v. STATE 893
REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER

--+ and A2-Partner and upheld acquittal as regards other. A
accused. Hence the present appeal. .
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:Both the trial Court and the High Court held
that A3 is purported to have made a statement that he B
had sold the kerosene on the way. Similar statement
was purportedly given by A4. But the officials proceeded
to act on the aforesaid statements which were
undisputedly not signed statement. Apart from the fact
that the said statement did not in any way implicate the c
appellants, the effect of such statement to find the
appellants guilty has been lost sight of by the High Court.
The trial court found that there was no evidence to show
and no steps were taken and no investigation was
focused, as to whether the articles were sold on the
0
way. The categorical findings of the trial Court and the
High Court were that no suc.h sale took place. Even if
the stand of the prosecution is accepted that the receipt
was not established, that would in a sense relate to the
purchase and not to sale and, therefore, Clause 13 of
Pondicherry Kerosene Control Order, 1969 read with E
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 do not
have any application. The trial Court was, therefore,
justified in directing acquittal of the appellant and the
High Court without properly analyzing the legal position
directed conviction. [Para 6] [895 H 896 A,B,C,D] F
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 504 of 2001

From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2000 of
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. G
401 of 1993
. ,;
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Anil Kaush1k, Shiv Prakash
Pandey and Gopal Singh for the A.ppellants.

V. Kanakraj, S.J. Aristotle. V.G. Pragasam and H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 12 S.C.R.

A Prabhuramasubramanian for the Respondent. .......-

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Or. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1.Challenge in this appeal is to
the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High
8,., Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned
Special judge, Pondicherry in STR No . 95 of 1984 so far as the
appellants are concerned while upholding the acquittal in respect -,,.___
of five others.
2. The seven accused persons faced trial in the following
c manner:
The charges against the accused/appellants are that Al is ~

r-
a.partnership firm and A2 is the partner of the firm, A3 is the
Driver of the Vehicle concerned and A4 is Cleaner, while A5, ~

A6 .and A7 are said to be retail dealers of Kerosene. The I

D t-
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited from Madras is
distributing Kerosene to A 1 firm at Pondicherry and Al firm has
to observe Clause 13 of the Pondicherry Kerosen.e Control
Order, 1969 (in short the 'Control Order') and sell the Kerosene *
only to another wholesale dealer licensed under that order or to
E registered dealer or to any institution or person approved by .
the licensing authority. Such sales shall be in such quantities
and or such intervals, as the licensing authority may, by general
or special order, direct.

F The prosecution case is that on 15-07-1984, at about 6
p.m. one tanker lorry PYZ-5699 was brought to the check post
from Madras reporting import of 11,000 litres of Kerosene to Al +- '
firm and the driver also paid octroi of Rs.110/- vide receipt
No.966260 dated 15-07-1984. After looking at the invoice No.
6124 dated 01-07-1984, which has been marked as Ex.P2
G
Series, the authorities entertained suspicion because the
dispatch was on 14. 7.1984 and when they checked the vehicle +....
they found it empty. Therefore, the driver was questioned, who
gave statement (Ex.P3) written in his own hand writing, but did
not sign and escaped with A4 cleaner. Therefore, a case was
H
.. M/S. !POUR GKC & RKC & SONS & ANR v. STATE 895
REP BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

regist~red against A 1 firm as well as A2 partner alongwith driver A
and ~ieaner besides charging AS, A6 & A7 who are the retail
sellers of kerosene to whom A 1 claimed to have suld the
kerosE;!ne.
~·:·The trial Court on consideration of the evidence came to ·,
hold t~at the accusations have not been established. The State" 8
of Pondicherry filed an appeal before the High Court questioning
thediidgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court. By the , · ~
impugn.ed order the High Court set aside the acquittal so far as ·
the present appellants are concerned while dismissing the spme.
qu~ ~h~ other five co-accused persons. c..:,.
ti .
· 3.: Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the.
High· Court has lost sight of the fact that the ingredients.·
ne~es~ary to bring in application of clause 13 of the Control .
Order bave not been established and, therefore, the conviction~ D
as-recorded by the High Court cannot be sustained. It is pointed '
outJhat the basis for the proceeding against the appellant was
(;!ll~g~d· statement of A3, who has been acquitted by the tria! ,
.court and the same has been upheld by the High court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other .. E ,
hand submitted that the appellants produced certain documents
to show receipt of the 11,000 litres of kerosene. But on
verification it was noticed that those documents are not relatable
~nd, therefore, the High Court was justified in finding the
app.eUants guilty. F
5. Clause 13 of the Control Order reads as follows:
· •'13. Restriction on sale of kerosene - No wholesale dealer
.. sha}I sell kerosene, except to another wholesale .dealer .,
licensed under this order or to registered dealer or to any G ., ,
· irtstitution or person approved by the licensing authority. Su9h •.
sales shall be in such quantities and at such intervals, as the
.. licensing authority may, by general or special order, direct." .
6. A bare perusal of the provision shows that it is relatable " •
to s~l.e. Both the trial Court and the High Court held th~fA3 is·.}:! .:. 4
/,; . •~. .. ~ i ~~: ·\ ; ~
• {<.
·, 896 SUPREME COUR.T R~PORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A purported to have made a statement that he had soid the
kerosene on the way. Similar statement was purportedly given
by A4. But the officials proceeded to act on the aforesaid
statements which were undisputedly not signed statement. Apart
from the fact that the said statement did not in any way implicate
s the appellants, the effect of such statement to find the appellants
· guilty has been lost sight of by the High Court. The trial court ........... I

foun:i that there was no evidence to show and no steps were
taken and no investigation was focused, as to whe.ther the
articles were sold on the way. The categorical findings of the
c trial Court and the High Court were that no such sale took place.
Even if the stand of the prosecution is accepted that the receipt
was not established that would in a sense relate to the purchase
and not to sale and, therefore, Clause 13 read with Section 7
of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the 'Act') do
not have any application. The trial Court was, therefore, justified
0
in directing acquittal of the appellant and the High Court without
propPrly analyzing the legal position directed conviction which
canPot be maintained.
7. The appeal is allowed. The bail bonds executed by the
E appellants for release on bail, pursuant to the order dated
20.4.2008 shall stand discharged.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

+ •.