MANOJ versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2026] 3 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 13-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 144 : 2026 INSC 152
Manoj 
v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1630 of 2015)
13 February 2026
[B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In the absence of any subsisting statutory control or saving 
provision operative on the date of the alleged incident, whether 
the prosecution of the appellants under the Essential Commodities 
Act, 1955 is legally tenable.
Headnotes†
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – s.3 r/w. s.7 – Cement Control 
(Amendment) Order 1989 – Cement Control Order, 1967 – 
Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 – The 
prosecution case is that the Public Works Department of the 
State Government had awarded the work of construction of 
a Khar passage in cement concrete – As per the terms of the 
contract, the PWD was required to supply 850 bags of cement 
from Government quota to the contractor (A3) – According 
to the prosecution, the second indent of 400 bags of cement 
released from the PWD godown did not reach the work site – 
Raids were conducted and Trucks were intercepted – During 
the raid, the appellants were allegedly found in possession of 
365 bags of cement of Government quota – The remaining 25 
bags of cement were allegedly recovered on 28.04.1994 from 
a shop and it was alleged that 10 cement bags were received 
by A5 for delivering the cement bags to the appellants – Upon 
appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted 
Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for the offences u/s.3 r/w. s.7 of 
the E.C. Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for one year – Conviction and sentence was 
affirmed by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: By notification dated 24.11.1962, cement was declared 
an “essential commodity” u/s.2(a) of the E.C. Act, thereby 
* Author
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 
145
Manoj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
subjecting it to statutory control in public interest – In exercise of 
powers conferred u/s. 3 of the E.C. Act, the Central Government 
promulgated the Cement Control Order, 1967, which laid down 
an exhaustive framework for regulation of production, supply, 
distribution and pricing of cement – In terms of s.5 of the E.C. 
Act, the Central Government delegated its powers in respect 
of cement being a commodity other than foodstuffs to the State 
Governments – Pursuant thereto, the State of Maharashtra 
issued the Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 
1973  – Subsequently, by S.O. 168(E) dated 01.03.1989, the 
Central Government substantially withdrew price and distribution 
control over cement and deleted several operative clauses of 
the Cement Control Order, 1967 – Further, by notification dated 
07.08.1990, the delegation of powers to the State Government to 
regulate retail distribution of cement through licenses or permit 
was expressly rescinded – In the present case, the alleged 
offence is stated to have occurred on 24.03.1994 – On that date, 
neither the Cement Control Order, 1967 nor the Maharashtra 
State licensing regime under the 1973 Order operated so as to 
attract penal consequences u/s.7 of the E.C. Act – Significantly, 
the prosecution has failed to place on record any subsisting control 
order, notification, or statutory restriction in force on the relevant 
date – Therefore, the prosecution launched against the appellants 
under the E.C. Act was wholly misconceived – Both the trial Court 
and the High Court failed to examine the legal effect of decontrol 
and proceeded solely on an appreciation of evidence, ignoring the 
absence of a statutory foundation for the offence – The judgment of 
conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside.  
[Paras 15.1, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 16, 17, 28]
Penal Code, 1860 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – 
s.222 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.245 – 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – s.3 r/w. s.7 – Lapse in 
investigation  – Failure of investigating agency to invoke 
appropriate provisions of Penal Code, 1860:
Held: Both the trial Court and the High Court held that the appellants 
failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation or documentary 
justification for possession of cement bags – These findings are 
essentially factual and are supported by the evidence on record– In 
the absence of any subsisting statutory order u/s.3 of the E.C. Act 
on the date of the alleged occurrence, a conviction u/s.7 thereof 
is legally impermissible – This was a case where the investigating 
146
[202

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.