1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 433 OF 1997. APPELLANT: Shri Shankarlal S/o Jainarayan Chandak, aged 30 years, R/o Chapral, Tahsil – Lakhandur, Distt. Bhandara. -VERSUS- NON-APPLICANT: The State of Maharashtra Shri R. M. Daga, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.S. Doifode, Advocate for the non-applicant. CORAM: A. H. JOSHI, J. DATED: 8th JUNE 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This case is under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was tried summarily by the Special Judge. Since tried as a summary case, charge was not framed, however, particulars of the offence were put to the accused. 2. The particulars explained to the accused read as follows: “That, you were in possession of 150 liters kerosene oil without any Permit or licence either to store or to sell it and you thereby contravened the provisions of Petroleum Product (Regulations and Distribution) Order, issued under Section 3 and 7 of E. C. Act and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3 R/w 7 of the E. C. Act, and within the cognizance of this Court.” 2 [Quoted from pages 21 & 22 of paper book] 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and he was again put particulars which read as follows: “That by storing the kerosene, you have contravened the Provisions of Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licencing. Order 1966 issued U/s 3 of E. C. Act” [Quoted from page 22 of appeal paper book 4. The accused was convicted under Section 3 r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer R. I. for 10 days. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. R. M. Daga has argued that the violation of order passed under Essential Commodities Act, being the pivotal and jurisdictional imputation, the accused ought to have been put specific order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, which was violation for which the accused was being tried. 6. On perusal of judgment, it is seen that any specific order issued by the Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has not been spelt out either in the complaint filed or the charge-sheet nor in substance put to the accused. 7. The case has proceeded on assumption. 8. The learned trial Court has observed in paragraph 3 3 of the judgment as follows: “The order as Mah. Kerosene Dealers Licencing Orders and Kerosene restriction of use Order were in force”. [Quoted from page 50 of the appeal paper book] 9. In absence of opportunity to the accused to meet the specific imputation, the trial had vitiated. 10. In the result, judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot sustain and the same is set aside. 11. Appeal is allowed accordingly. JUDGE //MULEY//