News Date :
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently held that under the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order of 1988 only an officer of the rank of inspector or above can carry out exercises like search or seizure with regard to alleged illegal possession of gas cylinders [Avtar Singh and anr vs State of Punjab].
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal, therefore, acquitted two persons accused of hoarding gas cylinders.
The Court said that it was a sub-inspector who had led the operation in the present case to nab the accused while they were allegedly selling cylinders in black.
“Nothing has been placed on record to support the argument that the sub-inspector of the police was authorised to take action under the aforesaid Order. 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. In the absence of the authority and power with the sub-inspector to take action as per the Order, the proceedings initiated by him will be totally unauthorised and have to be struck down,” the Supreme Court noted.
The appellants moved the top court challenging their conviction and sentence of six months under under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
The trial court had convicted them and the Punjab and Haryana High Court had upheld the same.
The counsel for the petitioners argued before the top court that the case of the prosecution cannot hold since the actions were carried out by a sub-inspector rather than an inspector rank official or above.
The counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the accused should not be let off merely on technicalities. The issue was of black marketing and unauthorised possession at a time where there was shortage of gas cylinders, it was stressed.
The Supreme Court found force in the submissions of the accused.
It noted that as per clause 7 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, a sub-inspector of the police cannot take action.
“No doubt, the aforesaid clause provides that in addition to the specified officers, the persons authorised by the Central or State Government may take action under the Order. However, nothing has been placed on record to support the argument that the sub-inspector of the police was authorised to take action under the aforesaid order,” the Court said
The Court underscored that it is settled position of law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, it can be done in that way alone and not in any other manner.
It, therefore, set aside the High Court verdict and acquitted the accused.
Advocates Shalu Sharma, Vishal Arun Mishra, Harshita Nigam, Saurabh Sharma, Kishorilal Pyarelal Gupta, UM Tripathi, Ayush Panwar, Yashshavi Sharma, Pawan Kumar, Ujjwal Bhardwaj, and Firoz Saifi appeared for the petitioners.
Advocate Karan Sharma appeared for the State of Punjab.
