Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Kerosene Case Due to Jurisdictional Errors

Conviction under Essential Commodities Act Overturned; Proceedings by Unauthorized Officer Deemed Invalid

In a significant legal development, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has overturned the conviction of Rakesh Kumar, who was previously sentenced under the Essential Commodities Act for unauthorized possession and transportation of kerosene. The court found jurisdictional errors in the proceedings, which were conducted by an unauthorized officer, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The case originated when Rakesh Kumar was apprehended by the police in Hamirpur district with 170 litres of kerosene oil in December 2008. The police, unable to produce a permit for transporting the kerosene, charged Kumar under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine, later reduced to three months by the Sessions Court on appeal.

In the revision petition, Kumar challenged the legality of the proceedings, arguing that the investigation was flawed and conducted by an officer not authorized under the Kerosene Control Order, 1993. The High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, found merit in these arguments, noting that the prosecution failed to prove that Kumar was a dealer under the Public Distribution System or that he violated any specific provision of the Kerosene Control Order.

The court emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised like an appellate court, focusing only on correcting jurisdictional errors or misapplication of law. It highlighted the absence of evidence to establish that Kumar was dealing in kerosene as a business, which is a crucial requirement for prosecution under the relevant Order.

Moreover, the analysis report on the kerosene samples failed to meet the necessary BIS specifications, further weakening the prosecution's case. The court referenced multiple precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance on unauthorized searches, to underscore that the proceedings conducted by SI Guler Chand were invalid.

As a result, the High Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and acquitted Kumar, ordering the refund of any fines paid. The decision underscores the importance of adherence to procedural mandates and the limits of judicial intervention in revisional jurisdictions.

Bottom Line:

Revisional jurisdiction of High Court is limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner; judgments of lower courts set aside due to lack of jurisdictional error and improper application of Kerosene Control Order.

Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 397, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Section 7, Kerosene Control Order, 1993 Clause 9, Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 100, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 481

Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P., (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2804994