Section 7 of ECA : Section 7: Penalties

Explanation using Example

Imagine a scenario where a local grocery store owner is found to be hoarding rice, an essential commodity, during a period of shortage. The government had previously issued an order under Section 3 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, prohibiting the hoarding of rice to ensure its availability to the general public.

Upon investigation, it is discovered that the store owner deliberately ignored the government order and continued to hoard large quantities of rice to sell at higher prices. As a result, the owner is charged with contravening the order made under Section 3 of the Act.

Under Section 7(1)(a)(ii), the court finds the owner guilty and sentences him to a term of imprisonment for six months and imposes a fine. Additionally, under Section 7(1)(b), the hoarded rice is forfeited to the Government. Furthermore, under Section 7(1)(c), the court orders the forfeiture of the storage containers used to hoard the rice.

Since this is the first offense, the sentence is within the minimum and maximum limits prescribed by the Act. However, if the owner were to commit the same offense again, under Section 7(2A), the punishment for the subsequent conviction would not be less than six months, reflecting the seriousness with which repeated violations are treated.

The example illustrates the application of Section 7 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in penalizing those who contravene orders made to regulate the supply of essential commodities, thereby protecting the interests of the general public.