Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Baban Shankar Walzade, was convicted by the Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for allegedly selling kerosene above the controlled price. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for seven days and a fine. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the appeal and examined the evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence that the appellant actually sold kerosene to any customer at a price higher than the controlled price. The only evidence was that the appellant was found in possession of kerosene in excess of the permissible limit. However, the offence under Section 3(2)(d) read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) requires proof of sale at an excessive price. Since there was no evidence of any sale, the conviction was not sustainable. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Sale Above Controlled Price - Section 3(2)(d) read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove that the accused sold the commodity at a price exceeding the controlled price. In the absence of evidence of actual sale, conviction cannot be sustained. The court held that mere possession of kerosene in excess of permissible limit does not constitute an offence under the charged sections. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(d) read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for selling kerosene above the controlled price is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Essential Commodities Act
- 1955
- Section 3(2)(d)
- Section 7(1)(a)(ii)
- burden of proof
- sale above controlled price
- acquittal for lack of evidence
