Shopkeeper convicted for storing diesel and kerosene without licence; probation kept
A trial court convicted a shopkeeper in Sri Ganganagar district for storing diesel and kerosene without a valid licence under the Essential Commodities Act and released him on probation. The State appealed seeking a substantive sentence. The High Court dismissed the State appeal in April 2026 and kept the probation order.
This page records what the cited court, tribunal and government records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The conviction stands and the probation order continues after the State appeal was dismissed.
What happened
The High Court recorded that during inspection of the shop a substantial quantity of diesel and kerosene was found stored without any valid licence or authorisation, in contravention of Control Orders under the Essential Commodities Act.
The High Court recorded that the trial court had convicted the accused after a full trial but, noting a first offence, a protracted trial and hardship, released him on probation instead of imposing imprisonment.
The High Court held that sentencing discretion, including probation for first-time offenders where the offence does not exceed seven years, was lawfully exercised and showed no perversity calling for appellate interference.
The High Court therefore dismissed the State appeal as devoid of merit and sent the record back to the trial court.
What the record says
“during inspection of the shop of the accused-respondent, a substantial quantity of diesel and kerosene oil was found stored, for which the accused failed to produce any valid licence or authorization.”
Rajasthan High Court judgment in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 100/1999 (2026:RJ-JD:19111), para 2 — read the full text
A peaceful economic act
Storing fuel for sale without a licence harmed no complaining victim; the case records no violence, fraud, minors, coercion, adulteration, PDS diversion or spurious product.
What we could not confirm
The 2026 order does not state the exact inspection date or the exact litre quantity; it summarises the 1994 case and the 1997 conviction. The original trial judgment was not separately opened. No PDS diversion, adulteration or cheating allegation appears in the 2026 order.