Order, 1968. Paragraph 3(g) defines “kerosene” to mean any inflammable hydrocarbons including any mixture of hydrocarbons but excluding motor spirit which is made from petroleum and is of average specifications as given in Schedule I to this Order. Since there was no chemical examination of the seized articles, the appellants could not be found guilty of an offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Further, the crossexamination of PW5, who endorsed the police case filed under the Essential Commodities Act, reveals that PW5 did not take any sample from the seized kerosene oil and hence did not send the sample of kerosene oil to experts for ascertaining whether the seized article was in fact kerosene oil or not. In the absence of any such evidence, the learned Court could not have come to any definite conclusion that the seized article was kerosene oil or that the prosecution case was proved on that count. It is also significant that the seized drums of kerosene oil were not produced in Court and hence the doubt on the seized article remained and should have accordingly been resolved in favour of the accused persons/appellants. There was hence no material evidence before the learned Court to hold that the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt or that the accused persons/appellants acted with either intention or knowledge.
