Prem Singh vs State and Others

Deoki Nandan, J.—The Petitioner in this case was a sales-man employed in the Malhipur Mahmood Nagla Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti. district Moradabad. He has been detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Suplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'') by the order passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad, dated 24th February, 1981, confirmed by the State Government by an order dated 6th April, 1981.

The petitioner''s contention is that he could not have been detained under the Act, for, only a dealer in essential commodities who commits, or a person who instigates a dealer in essential commodities to commit an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) or under any other law for the time being.in force relating to the control of the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community, could be so detained.

We have heard the contentions of the learned counsels for the parties.

Section 3(1) of the Act says that the person who can be detained, must be a person with respect to whom the detaining authority is satisfied that it is necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community." Explanation to Section 3 of the Act defines the expression acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community" as the commission or instigation of any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, or under any other law for the time being into force relating to the control of the production, supply or distribution or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the com-uiunity, or dealing in any commodity which is an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), or with respect to which provisions have been made in any such other law with a view to making a gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of that Act or any other law in force for the time being.

It is clear that only a person who is a dealer can commit such an offence. As far as the question of instigation is concerned, there is no allegation that the Petitioner instigated any other dealer to commit such an offence as contemplated in the said definition.

The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The Petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other offence.