/2023 INSC 0207/
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1711 OF 2011
AVTAR SINGH & ANR.           .…Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB                             …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The   judgment   of   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   &
Haryana   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   562­SB   of   1997   dated
January 15, 2010 is under challenge in this Appeal.
2. The   appellants   are   aggrieved   of   their   conviction
under   Section   7   of   the   Essential   Commodities   Act,   1955
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2
3. The   Trial   Court   vide   judgment   and   order   dated
July 8, 1997 had convicted the appellants and directed them
to   undergo   imprisonment   for   a   period   of   six   months
alongwith fine of   ₹ 500/­ each.
4. The   facts,   as   are   available   on   record,   are   that   on
26.02.1995,   Sub­Inspector   of   Police   alongwith   other   police
officials was present at bus stop, Phagwara.  They received a
secret   information   that   the   appellants   were   indulging   in
selling   gas   cylinders   in   black.     They   were   charging    	
₹ 250/­
(Rs.   two   hundred   and   fifty   only)   instead   of   the   prescribed
rate  of   ₹ 102/­(Rs.  one   hundred   and  two  only).    Their   truck
bearing   No.   HR­05A­4918   was   parked   in   front   of   Chawla
Auto Workshop.   Finding the information to be reliable, FIR
was   registered   and   police   officials   went   at   the   spot   and
apprehended the accused. They were taken into custody.
5. In the  evidence  led  before the  trial court,  none  of
the   independent   witnesses   or   the   alleged   buyers   of   the
cylinders in black supported the case of the prosecution.   It
was only two official witnesses who deposed in favour of the
prosecution.

3
6. The   only   charge   which   could   be   proved   was
unauthorized   possession   of   gas   cylinders   on   the   basis   of
which   the   trial   court   convicted   the   appellants   and   ordered
imprisonment.
7. The order passed by the trial court was upheld in
appeal by the High Court.  
8. The   sole   argument   raised   by   the   learned   counsel
for   the   appellants   is   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.
9. 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

4
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.
10. In the case in hand, the action has been taken by
sub­Inspector   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.
11. On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   for   the   State
submitted   that   the   appellants   have   been   found   in
unauthorized   possession   of   the   gas   cylinders.     They   have
rightly   been   convicted.     Merely   for   some   technical   default,
they   should   not   be   allowed   to   go   scot­free.     At   that   time,
there  was  a  huge   shortage   of   gas   cylinders  and   Order     was
issued   to   check   its   black   marketing   and   unauthorised
possession.

5
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the relevant referred record.  
13.  The   facts   in   the   case   as   noticed   above   as   such,
are   not   in   dispute.     The   only   argument   raised   is   about   the
power of the person who had seized cylinder on the basis of
which   the   appellants   were   prosecuted.     Clause   7   of   the
Order,   which   is   reproduced   hereunder,   prescribes   officers
who have the power.
“ 7. Power of entry, search and seizure:­
(1) 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 ensuring compliance with the provisions
of   this   Order,   for   the   purpose   of   satisfying
herself   that   this   order   or   any   order   made
thereunder has been complied with: 
(a) Stop   and   search   any   vessel   or   vehicle
which the Officer has reason to believe has

6
been, or is being or is about to be, used in
the contravention of this Order;
(b) Enter or search any place with such aid or
assistance as may be necessary;
(c) Seize   and   remove   with   such   aid   or
assistance   as   may   be   necessary   ,   the
entire   quantity   of   any   stock   of   liquefied
petroleum gas in cylinders, cylinder valves
and   pressure   regulators,   alongwith   the
vehicles, vessels or any other conveyances
used   in   carrying     such   stock   if   he   has
reason to suspect that any provision of this
Order   has   been   or   is   being   or   is   about   to
be,   contravened   in   respect   of   such   stock
and thereafter take or authorise the taking
of all measures necessary for securing the
production   of   the   stock   of   liquefied
petroleum   gas   in   cylinder,   cylinders,   gas
cylinder   valves,   pressure   regulators,
vehicles,   vessels   or   other   conveyances   so
seized   before   the   Collector   having
jurisdiction  under  the  provisions   of   section
of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10
of 1955) and for their safe custody pending
such production……”

7
14. It nowhere prescribes that a Sub­Inspector  of the
Police   can   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.   
15. 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 . 
16. In the absence of the authority and power with the
Sub­Inspector to take action as per the Order, the proceedings
initiated   by   him   will   be   totally   unauthorised   and   have   to   be
struck down.

8
17. For   the   reasons   mentioned   above,   the   appeal   is
allowed.     The   judgment   by   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   &
Haryana   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   562­SB   of   1997   dated
January   15,   2010   and   the   order   dated   08.07.1997   passed   by
the Trial Court are set aside.  As a consequence, the conviction
and sentence of the appellants under Section 7 of the Act is set
aside.  The bail bond stands discharged.
…………………J.
                                                         [Abhay S. Oka]
…….……………J.
     [Rajesh Bindal]
New Delhi 
23.03.2023.