Gas Regulators Not 'Essential Commodities' Unless Notified: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside 27-Year-Old Conviction

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court set aside a 1998 conviction of the appellant under the Essential Commodities Act, 1998 (“the Act”) opining that gas-regulators by themselves could not be treated as “essential commodities” under the Act unless specifically notified by law.

The appellant was allegedly found to be in the possession of 38 gas regulators without having a valid license, which was seen as contravention of the Act, resulting in the appellant's conviction which was challenged before the Court.

It was the case of the appellant that firstly there were many irregularities in the procedure adopted. Furthermore, an identical case was filed against another person, who was found to be in possession of 3 gas-regulators. However, he was acquitted. It was argued that applying the principal of parity, the appellant should have also been acquitted.

On the contrary, it was argued by the State that no parity could be demanded by the appellant in light of the substantially larger quantity of regulators recovered from his possession.

After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that only such commodities fell within the Act which were either expressly enumerated therein or notified by the Central government. However, the prosecution had failed to produce any such statutory documents that demonstrated that gas regulators were governed by the Act.

“A gas regulator is merely an accessory or an appliance used in conjunction with liquefied petroleum gas and cannot, in the absence of a specific statutory mandate, be elevated to the status of an essential commodity. In the absence of such legislative or executive backing, the very edifice of the prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act stands denuded of legal foundation.”

In this background, it was held that in absence of such legislative or executive backing, the very foundation of prosecution under the Act was legally unsustainable.

The Court further rejected the argument of the State and held that the distinction carved out based on the quantity recovered was of little consequence when the essential character of the alleged commodity itself remained unestablished.

“Once the very nature of the recovered articles is doubtful, the numerical strength thereof becomes wholly irrelevant.”

While underscoring these observations along with taking note of the irregularities in the prosecution case, the conviction of the appellant was held to be vitiated by a fundamental misconception and serious evidentiary lacunae.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

Title: Himmat Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 420

Click Here To Read/Download Order