CRIME RELATING TO ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES

INTRODUCTION
The Essential Commodities Laws are socio - economic penal legislations for the control over
the production, supply, distribution and trade and commerce there in. These are basic
necessity articles for survival and meaningful sustenance which means and includes
foodstuffs, petroleum products, fertilizers, raw jute and jute textiles, etc., as are listed to
schedule provided in Section 2 A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Law relating
to essential commodities basically controls the production, supply and distribution, etc. the
commodities paramount object of this being to secure equitable distribution and their
availability at fair price.

The Principal Legislation in the Law is the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, amended in
2006, which extends to the whole of India and provides for diversification of powers
governing the control over production, supply and distribution etc. of essential commodities.
It forms along with The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 and The
Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act,
1980, the basic Legislative framework.1
From 15 February 2002, the Government removed 11 classes cf commodities in full and one
in part from the list of essential commodities declared earlier. In order to accelerate economic
growth and to benefit consumers, two more commodities have been deleted from the list from
31 March 2004. At present the list of essential commodities contains 15 items.
List of commodities declared essential under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955:
 Coal, including coke and other derivatives.
 Component parts and accessories of automobiles.
 Cotton and woolen textiles.
 Drugs.
 Foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils.
 Iron and Steel, including manufactured products of Iron & Steel.
 Paper, including newsprint, paperboard and strawboard.

1
Ranjeet Mahonty, “The Essential Commodities law and its Enforcement in India”, Orissa law
Review, September - October 2011, Page no. 95
 Petroleum and Petroleum products Cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other
concentrates.
 Raw Cotton either ginned or unpinned and cotton seed.
 Raw Jute.
 Jute textiles.
 Fertilizer, whether inorganic, organic or mixed.
 Yam made wholly from cotton.
 Seeds of food crops and seeds of fruits and vegetables,
 Seeds of cattle fodder and
 Jute seeds.2

ROLE OF THE ACT

Although the preamble of the Act of 1981 tends to make one believe that main object of, enacting
the said Act was to deal more rigorously with the black marketers and profiteers in Essential
Commodities, paradoxically, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as amended by the Act 18
of 1981 not only failed to achieve its object but also did not have any impact on the white
collar criminals, thereby defeating the objects of the Act viz., to ensure the speedy trial of the
offenders and make available the essential Commodities at fair prices to the consumer. Our
experience of the enforcement and working of the Essential Commodities Act reveals that it
has no teeth to land that there are many loop-holes in the Act which require to be plugged by
introducing suitable legislation to amend the existing Law.

Confiscation

The Act provides for confiscation of property of a trader who has committed an offence in
respect of an essential commodity. Ever since the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 came
into force, the State Governments booked innumerable cases against a number of erring
traders and confiscated their goods u/s. 6-A of the Act. But the Police Officers of the
Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplier Department, did not prosecute the traders in criminal Courts.
Even in a few cases the State-Government prosecuted the offenders before Criminal Courts
they ended in acquittal. As a consequence thereof, u/s- 6-C (2) of the Essential commodities
Act the State Governments are obliged to restore the value of the confiscated properties to the

2
Sec.2 (a) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (as amended 2006).
Traders. In identical Acts like A.P. Forest Act (1) of 1967 which provided both for
confiscation of the timber as well as for prosecution of the offenders, a provision identical to
S, 6-C(2) of the Essential Commodities Act has not been enacted by the legislature. The
prosecution before a criminal Court and the Confiscation of the seized property by the
authorities under the Forest Act, 1967 are made independent of each other, so that in the
event of acquittal of the accused the State Government is not under an obligation to restore
the value of the confiscated property to the accused.
The Supreme Court of India in Divisional Forest Officer V. Sudhakar Rao in 1986 Cr. L.J.
357 upheld the validity of the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act-in this regard. Parliament
may therefore delete S. 6-C (2) of the Essential Commodities Act for effective enforcement
of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at the earliest.
Prosecution

If any person contravenes any order made u/s 3 of the E.C. Act, S. 7provides for a maximum
sentence of imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and a minimum of 3 months
imprisonment and in the case of habitual offenders for a minimum of 6 months
imprisonment. All the offences under the E.C. Act are warrant cases as defined by S. 2(X) of
the Cr. P.C. triable as per the procedure provided Chapter XIX of Cr. P.C. for trial of warrant
cases

The Act of 1981 created the Special Courts to try all the offences under the E.C. Act in a
summary way, whereby, the power of the special Court to impose the sentence on conviction
is restricted to 2 years As summary trial of all the offences under the E.C. Act has been made
mandatory in no case the Special Court can pass a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 2
years. It is paradoxical that a Sessions Judge is recurred to preside over Special Court is
impose a sentence not exceeding 2 years in case of conviction when u/s. 29(2) of Cr P.C.
even Judicial First Class Magistrates are empowered to impose a sentence of imprisonment
for a term not exceeding 3 years or fine not exceeding Rs.5, 000/- or of both.

The very object of ensuring speedy trial gets defeated in two ways viz.(l) when the Special
Court presided over by sessions judge for one district or for more than one district is
functioning from a place distant from the place of the accused the Special Court is
inaccessible to the litigant public and (2) the investigating police officers have not been filing
the charge-sheets in almost all the cases which is a condition precedent for commencement of
trial.

If Parliament amends the Law empowering the Asst. Sessions Judges including the Add.
Asst. Sessions Judges to try the offences "by warrant procedure” under the E.C. Act they can
impose the maximum sentence of 7 years prescribed under the E.C. Act and at the same time
ensure speedy trial of the cases with minimum inconvenience either to the accused or to the
witnesses or to the prosecution. However in the metropolitan areas since there are no Courts
of Asst. Sessions judges, Parliament may provide that in every metropolitan area, the
offences under the E.C. Act shall be tried by the chief Metropolitan Magistrate appointed by
the High Court, "by warrant procedure". The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions)
Act, 1981 has no teeth to bite and the maximum sentence of 2 years imposed by the Special
Court does not have a deterrent effect on the white collar criminals inasmuch as whenever the
accused is convicted and sentenced for a period not exceeding 3 years u/s. 389(3) Cr. P.C. he
is entitled to be released on bail if he intends to appeal to the High Court.

In the Parent Act there were provisions empowering the Court to pass a sentence of less than
3 months or less than 6 months as the case may be for reasons to be recorded in writing. The
amended Act of 1981 has taken away that power of the Court. Now if a person is found guilty
u/s. 7(1) (a)(ii) or 7(2) the Judge has to pass the minimum sentence of imprisonment of 3
months and if the offence is one u/s. 7(2) (a) of the Act the Judge has to pass a minimum
sentence of 6 months. The court has no option or discretion in the matter even when the
offender is a petty shopkeeper or hawker or a street vendor.

U/S, 10-A of the E. C. Act every offence is a cognizable and a non-bailable offence. The
investigating police officers in almost all the case have been arresting petty persons like
clerks and vehicle drivers of the big businessmen. The failure of police to promptly arrest the
white collar criminals has been exploited by them in moving either the Special court or the
High Court for grant of anticipatory bail u/s. 438, Cr. P.C. and once they obtain anticipatory
bail they are never arrested and brought before the Court since in most of the cases charge-
sheets are not filed. It is time that Parliament wakes up to the realities and inserts an
appropriate provision in the E.C. Act taking away the power of the Courts to grant
anticipatory bail, to the offenders under the E.C. Act.
The delay in the trial of a criminal case is mainly caused on account of delay in prompt
investigation of the cases and liking of the charge-sheets by the Police. It is in order to avoid
the delay in the investigation, that S. 167(5), Cr. P.C. provided that in a case triable by a
Magistrate as a summons Case, if the investigation has not been completed within a period of
6 months from the date of arrest of the accused, the Magistrate shall order the stoppage of
investigation unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the magistrate that for
special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of investigation beyond the
prescribed period of 6 months is necessary The period of 6 months prescribed u/s. 167(5) acts
as a bar for delayed filing of the charge-sheets in summons cases and ensures speedy
completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheets. Parliament should make the
Superior Police Officers accountable under law it investigating officer misuses or abuses his
power in the enforcement of the provision of the E.C. Act.

PENAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE ACT

There had been on our Statute books the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 which was
amended in 1981 for dealing more effectively with black marketers, hoarders and profiteers
so as to take stem action/ measures against such anti-social elements and white collar
criminals who indulge in playing havoc with the public by disrupting supply and distribution
of essential commodities including food-stuffs for their wrongful gain. The act aims at,in
order to minimize, if not to eradicate, these most heinous crimes against the society. But,
paradoxically enough, the relevant provisions of the maximum sentence of imprisonment has
been reduced from seven year to only two years.3

3
Pradyot kumar sengupta, “A few thoughts on the Essential Commodities (special provision)
Act,1981(No.l8 of 1981)”,Criminal law Journal, 1984,pg no.41 -46