Supreme Court sets aside EC Act conviction in cement decontrol case (2026 INSC 152).
SC QUASHES CONVICTION UNDER ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT IN CEMENT DECONTROL CASE
CASE SUMMARY – In Manoj vs. State of Maharashtra (2026 INSC 152), the Supreme Court examined whether conviction under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was sustainable for alleged diversion and storage of government quota cement in 1994. The Court held that cement control regulations were withdrawn by the Cement Control (Amendment) Order, 1989, and state licensing powers were rescinded in 1990. Since no operative control order existed on the date of the alleged offence, prosecution under Section 7 EC Act was legally untenable. The Court set aside the conviction while observing that IPC provisions could apply in appropriate cases of diversion.
| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Manoj vs. State of Maharashtra (2026 INSC 152) |
| Introduction | Appeal before the Supreme Court challenging conviction under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged unauthorized possession and black-marketing of government quota cement. |
| Factual Background | PWD supplied cement for government construction work. Allegedly, 365 bags were diverted and found in possession of appellants. They were convicted for violation of Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 under EC Act. |
| Legal Issues | (1) Whether cement control regulations were in force on 24.03.1994?
(2) Whether conviction under Section 7 EC Act is sustainable without a subsisting control order? |
| Applicable Law | Sections 3 & 7 EC Act, 1955; Cement Control Order 1967; Maharashtra Cement (Licensing & Control) Order 1973; Cement Control (Amendment) Order 1989; Section 5 EC Act; Section 222 CrPC |
| Analysis | Supreme Court held that cement was decontrolled from 01.03.1989. No operative order existed on date of alleged offence (1994). Without a valid subsisting order under Section 3 EC Act, prosecution under Section 7 cannot stand. |
| Conclusion | Conviction set aside. Appeals allowed. Fine refunded. |
| Current Scenario | Cement remains decontrolled. However, diversion of government property may attract IPC offences even if EC Act provisions are inapplicable. |
“When statutory control is withdrawn, prosecution under a non-existent order cannot survive.”
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Discover insighs on Latin Maxims and Legal Glossary and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.The LawGist ensures exam success with quality Blogs and Articles on — Top Legal Picks (TLP), Current Affairs, latest Supreme Court judgments as Courtroom Chronicles. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every Professionals and Aspirant’s first choice. Discover more at thelawgist.org
