As per case facts, the appellants were convicted by the Trial Court and High Court for selling gas cylinders at a price higher than the prescribed rate, an act contrary ... to the Essential Commodities Act. The conviction was based primarily on the testimony of official witnesses, as independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. The appellants appealed against this conviction. The question arose whether the Sub-Inspector of Police, who initiated the action, had the requisite authority under the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988, specifically Clause 7, which specifies who can carry out entry, search, and seizure. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sub-Inspector of Police was not an authorized officer as per the said Order. The Court emphasized that when a specific power is granted to perform an action in a particular manner, it must be done in that precise way, and any deviation renders the action unauthorized. Consequently, the entire proceedings initiated by the unauthorized officer were deemed invalid, leading to the setting aside of the appellants' conviction and sentence.