PRAKASH BABU RAGHUVANSHI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 13-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
PRAKASH BABU RAGHUV ANSHI 
v. 
ST ATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955-Sections 2(c), 2(cc), 3 and 7-
Conviction by Trial Court under Section 3 read with Section 7(JJ(a)(ii)-
Confirmed by High Court-On appeal-Held: Neither before Trial Court nor 
the High Court 'order' under Section 3, whose contravention was alleged 
was placed on record-This was essential to bring application under Section 
7-Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Purti Vitaran Scheme, 1991. 
Appellant-accused was convicted by Trial Court for an offence in 
terms of section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential 
Commodities Act, 1995. Conviction having been upheld by High Court, 
the present appeal was filed. 
Appellant contended that for attracting Section 7 of the Act, the 
primary requirement was that there must be violation of an order. It 
was further contended that prosecution was for violation of Madhya 
E 
Pradesh Sarvajanik Pur.ti Vitaran Scheme, 1991, and as scheme did not 
amount to an 'order' under Section 3 of the Act, Section 7 thereof was 
not attracted. Respondent-state contended that this plea was not raised 
before the courts below and could not be allowed as it needed factual 
adjudication. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, 
G 
H 
the Court 
HELD :I.I. Though there is substance in the plea raised by State, 
yet, for bringing an application under SectiOn 7 of the Act, the P.ssential 
requirement is an order, the violation of which is alleged. Unfortunately, 
neither before the Trial Court nor the High Court, any effort was made 
to place on record the order the violation of which was alleged. 
[391-H; 392-A) 
Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh Society and Ors. v. State of 
Madhya Pradesh and Anr., [1981) 4 SCC 535, relied on. 
390 
P.B. RAGHUVANSHI v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 
391 
2. Matter is remitted to the High Court to hear it afresh. The 
A 
parties shall be permitted to place materials in support of their respective 
stands. It would be incumbent upon the State to file materials to show 
as to which 'order' was violated. [392-E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISQICTION 
Criminal Appeal No. 
\ 
IOll of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2003 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Crl. A. No. 455 of 1997. 
S.B. Upadhyay and Ms. Kumud Lata Das for the Appellant. 
Vishwajit Singh and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. : Leave granted. 
An interesting point has been raised in the appeal, which.unfortunately 
does not appear to have been canvassed before the courts below. The 
appellant was convicted for allegedly committing offence in terms of Section 
3 read with Section 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in 
short 'the Act'). He was found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge, Vidisha 
in 
Sessions 
Case 
No. 
11 
of 1996. 
The 
conviction 
and 
the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 as 
had been imposed, came to be confirmed by a learned Single Judge of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bench by the impugned judgment. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted 
that for attracting Section-7 of the Act, the primary requirement is that there 
must be violation of an order. What the prosecution seems to have relied upon 
is Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Purti Vitaran Scheme, 1991 (in short the 
'Scheme'). According to him, the Scheme cannot be equated with an order, 
as required under the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the 
G 
other hand, submitted that such a plea which essentially woul4-need factual 
adjudication, was not canvassed before either the Trial Court or the High 
Court. 
Though there is substance in the plea raised by learned counsel for the 
H 
A 
B 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
State, yet, for bringing an application under Section 7 of the Act, the essential 
requirement is an order, the violation of which is alleged. Unfortunately, 
neither before the Trial Court nor the High Court, any effort was made to 
place 
on 
record 
the 
order the 
violation of which 
was 
alleged. In Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh Society and Ors. v. 
State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 535, it was observed that 
a Scheme like the one at hand is framed under Article 162 of the Constitution 
of India,

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