More than three decades after a dramatic police raid in Aurangabad led to the seizure of hundreds of cement bags, the Supreme Court has brought the case to a close. In a significant ruling delivered on February 13, 2026, the Court set aside the conviction of two men accused of illegally storing government-supplied cement, holding that no valid control order existed in 1994 to prosecute them under the Essential Commodities Act.
The verdict came in Manoj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to March 24, 1994. Police in Aurangabad received a tip-off that government quota cement was being diverted and unloaded near Hari Masjid in the Mondha area.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
According to the prosecution, cement meant for a Public Works Department (PWD) road project had been siphoned off. The project had been awarded to a cooperative society, which allegedly sublet the work. As per contract terms, 850 bags of cement were to be supplied from government quota.
During a raid, police claimed to have recovered 365 bags of cement from premises linked to Manoj and Prakash, and another 25 bags were later seized from a nearby shop. The prosecution alleged that the cement was intended for black marketing.
The two men were charged under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which deal with violations of government control orders regulating essential goods.
Trial and High Court Proceedings
The Special Judge in Aurangabad convicted the accused in 2000, sentencing them to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹100. The Bombay High Court later upheld the conviction.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
Both courts relied heavily on the fact that the cement recovered was part of government supply and that the accused had no license to store or sell it. They concluded that unauthorized possession amounted to violation of the law.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Senior counsel for the appellants argued that the entire prosecution was legally flawed. By 1994, cement had already been “decontrolled” by the Central Government.
The Court was told that in 1989, the Cement Control Order, 1967 had been substantially amended, removing price and distribution controls. Later, in 1990, the delegation of powers to State Governments to regulate retail cement distribution through licensing was withdrawn.
“The prosecution has not produced any subsisting control order in force on the date of the alleged incident,” counsel argued.
They contended that once statutory control was lifted, mere possession or storage of cement could not attract criminal liability under the Essential Commodities Act.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
On the other hand, the State maintained that the cement was meant exclusively for government work and had been unlawfully diverted. It argued that once possession was established, the burden shifted to the accused to justify it.
Court’s Observations
Justice R. Mahadevan, writing for the Bench, closely examined the legal framework governing cement regulation.
The Court traced how cement was once tightly controlled under the Cement Control Order, 1967, but noted that by a notification dated March 1, 1989, the Central Government had removed price and distribution controls.
Further, in 1990, powers delegated to States for regulating retail distribution through licenses were expressly rescinded.
The Bench observed:
“On that date, neither the Cement Control Order, 1967 nor the Maharashtra State licensing regime under the 1973 Order operated so as to attract penal consequences under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.”
The judges noted that the prosecution had failed to place on record any valid control order in force in March 1994 whose violation could justify conviction.
The Court relied on earlier precedent holding that when a statutory provision is omitted without a saving clause, prosecutions based on it cannot survive.
Importantly, the Bench clarified that although regulatory control had ended, diversion of government property might still attract liability under other laws, such as the Indian Penal Code, if properly invoked. However, in this case, the prosecution had proceeded solely under the Essential Commodities Act.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Orders Probe Into ₹14 Lakh Sabarimala Staff Transfers During Mandala
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court.
The Bench ordered that the bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled and that any fine paid be refunded to the appellants.
With these directions, the appeals were allowed and the case was closed.
Case Title: Manoj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1630 of 2015 (with Criminal Appeal No. 1631 of 2015)
Decision Date: February 13, 2026
