Case Analysis: Salekh Chand and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Details
Case name: Salekh Chand and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: S. Jafer Imam, J.L. Kapur
Date of decision: 22 April 1959
Proceeding type: Appeal
Source court or forum: Allahabad High Court (revision)
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
In June 1954 the appellants, Salekh Chand and Baboo Ram, sold 129 bags of cement (Rohtas and A.C.C. brands) to a purchaser identified as Khazan at a price of Rs 9/14 per bag. The State prosecuted them under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, read with Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Cement Control Order, 1953. The trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced each to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500. The appellants appealed to the Sessions Judge of Meerut, whose appeal was dismissed. They then filed a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court, which was also dismissed summarily. The appellants subsequently filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the conviction, the sentence, and the dismissals of the earlier proceedings.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was called upon to determine whether the appellants had sold cement at a price that exceeded the price fixed by law under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, in conjunction with the Uttar Pradesh Cement Control Order, 1953. The precise controversy centred on the absence of legal proof of the “controlled price” of cement on the date of sale. The State contended that the testimony of Ishwar Sahai, a Supply Inspector, who stated that Rohtas‑brand cement was selling at Rs 5/8 per bag and A.C.C.‑brand cement at Rs 5/3/3 per bag on 21‑June‑1954, implicitly established the controlled price, and therefore the sale at Rs 9/14 per bag was beyond the controlled price. The appellants argued that no documentary or testimonial evidence had been produced to show that the rates cited by the inspector were the prices fixed by the State Government under Section 6 or by the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Cement Control Order, nor that any such price had been published in the Official Gazette. Consequently, they maintained that the essential element of the offence—selling beyond the legally fixed controlled price—had not been proved.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, penalised any person who sold essential supplies at a price exceeding the price fixed under the relevant control order. Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Cement Control Order, 1953, prohibited any cement company from charging a price higher than that fixed by the State Government and notified in the Official Gazette. Section 7 of the same Order prohibited any stockist or permitted person from selling cement at a price exceeding the price fixed by the District Magistrate. The legal test applied required the prosecution to adduce admissible legal evidence—such as a Gazette notification or a certified order—demonstrating the price fixed by the authority at the relevant time. Evidence of market rates or retail prices alone could not satisfy the statutory requirement of proof of the controlled price.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Supreme Court observed that the only price‑related evidence on record was the inspection testimony of Ishwar Sahai, which described prevailing market rates for two cement brands. The Court noted that neither the trial court nor the Sessions Judge had identified this testimony as evidence of a price fixed by the State Government under Section 6 or by the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Cement Control Order. No Gazette notification or other legal document establishing a controlled price for cement on the date of the sale had been produced. Applying the statutory test, the Court held that without such legal proof the element of “selling beyond the controlled price” remained unestablished. Consequently, the prosecution’s case failed on the ground that the essential element of the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further emphasized that a conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies Act could be sustained only when the controlled price was legally established, and that reliance on mere market price evidence constituted a fatal procedural defect.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and the sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs 500 imposed on each appellant, and ordered that the appellants be released from the penalties. It concluded that, in the absence of legal proof of the controlled price of cement on the date of the alleged sale, the essential element of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act was not established, and therefore the convictions were vacated.