Essential Commodities Act breach attracted residuary punishment, and Article 142 could not override the statutory minimum sentence.

Contravention of a control order under the Essential Commodities Act was treated as falling under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) because Section 7(1)(a)(i) applies only to defaults involving non-furnishing of information, or maintenance of books, accounts or records under the specified regulatory clauses. The Court also stated that Article 142 cannot be used to reduce a statutory minimum sentence where Parliament has fixed punishment to enforce fair supply and distribution of essential commodities. The conviction and minimum sentence were therefore sustained under the regulatory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether conviction for breach of the control order attracted Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 rather than Section 7(1)(a)(i) of that Act; (ii) Whether the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act could be reduced in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether conviction for breach of the control order attracted Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 rather than Section 7(1)(a)(i) of that Act.

Analysis: The offence related to sale in violation of the control order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Section 7(1)(a)(i) was held to apply to contraventions connected with non-furnishing of information, maintenance of books, accounts, records, or similar regulatory requirements under an order made under Section 3(2)(h) and Section 3(2)(i). The contravention in the present case did not fall within those clauses. It was treated as a breach of another order made under Section 3(3), for which Section 7(1)(a)(ii) prescribed the applicable punishment.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) was and the minimum sentence was not vitiated.

Issue (ii): Whether the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act could be reduced in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power under Article 142 is wide, but it was held that it cannot be exercised so as to ignore the statutory object behind penal provisions enacted to secure proper supply and distribution of essential commodities at fair prices. The legislative policy of imposing a minimum sentence for such violations was to be respected, particularly where the amendment was intended to curb violations with impunity.

Conclusion: The minimum sentence could not be reduced under Article 142.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory conviction and the minimum sentence were upheld in light of the regulatory scheme governing essential commodities.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contravention of a control order does not fall within the specific regulatory defaults covered by Section 7(1)(a)(i), punishment under the residuary penal provision applies, and the Court will not invoke Article 142 to override a legislatively mandated minimum sentence imposed to enforce essential commodities regulation.

---