SURESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC') for quashing First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') registered against them for offences punishable under Ss. 420 and 120­B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Ss. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the EC Act'). By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR.

(2.) On 7/10/2021, invoices were issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ('BPCL') in the name of MP Bombay Auto Service Petrol Diesel Pump owned by the third appellant for the sale and transportation of 9 Kilolitres each of petrol and diesel through a particular tanker. It is alleged that the subject fuel was shifted to another tanker due to the valve failure in the original tanker. The first appellant was the driver of the tanker, which carried the subject fuel. On 11/10/2021, the SHO of Police Station Kishanpura District, Indore, intercepted the truck while unloading the subject fuel at the third appellant's petrol pump. The SHO recorded the disclosure statements of the first and the second appellants. The second appellant was the manager of Shivam Industries. The truck was seized with the liquid inside. The police collected samples from the four compartments of the tanker. The appellants were given arrest memos on 13/10/2021. On the same day, the samples collected by the SHO were sent to State Forensic Laboratory. The Collector (Food) instructed on the same day to send the samples collected from the subject tanker to BPCL Quality Assurance Laboratory, Indore. On 14/10/2021, the aforesaid impugned FIR was registered. The Forensic State Laboratory at Indore recommended sending the samples to the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun. According to the appellants' case, BPCL Quality Assurance Laboratory submitted a test report on 19/10/2021, recording that the samples conformed with the required specifications. In the meanwhile, there was a show cause notice issued to the third appellant under Sec. 6(b) of the EC Act, which culminated in an order imposing a fine on the ground that the third appellant could not produce an invoice authorising transportation through the tanker in question and he did not seek permission for opening the seal and lock of the tanker. The charge sheet was filed on 11/2/2022.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has invited our attention to the material forming part of the charge sheet. He pointed out that in the chargesheet, the allegation is that fuel oil mixed with Hexin, C­09, Pentane and rover process oil were procured from Mumbai and Hazira through Shivam Industries. The allegation is that if these hydrocarbons are mixed in different proportions in a mixing machine, the mixture looks exactly like petrol and diesel and has the same smell. The allegation is that on 11/10/2021, the hydrocarbon mixture was loaded in the intercepted tanker. The learned counsel submitted that, admittedly, there is no report obtained by the prosecution of any expert agency about the nature of the liquid found in the intercepted truck. Learned counsel invited our attention to the finding recorded in the impugned order, which records that, though samples were sent to the laboratory in charge of BPCL, a report from the laboratory has not been received. He submitted that taking the charge sheet and material therein as correct, there is no material to show the nature of the liquid found in the tanker at the time of its interception. Hence, no offence was made out.