SURENDRA PURI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant who is the owner of the petrol pump has come forward with a prayer that the First Information Report dated 6-9-1982 against her (Annexure 1) may be quashed. THE applicant is a dealer of High speed Diesel Oil and supplies and distributes the same. It is alleged that as a measure of revenge the Station Officer, Police Station, Medical College Meerut at the instance of the District Supply Officer, Meerut got lodged a frivolous and false report against the applicant showing a number of irregularities and contravention of various orders. It is further submitted that a perusal of the First Information Report is indicative of the fact that the contents are wholly based on conjecture and surmises without any grain of truth. THE first information report recites that on receipt of information that petrol and diesel is to arrive at the petrol pump in question on 6-9-1982 on that date and to cover up shortages kerosene oil will be mixed and the applicant indulges into mixing kerosene oil in petrol and diesel, the Supply Officer accompanied by some police officers reached the petrol pump and found that tanker is standing and petrol and diesel is being transferred to the pump. On checking with filter paper it was noticed that kerosene oil has been mixed in the petrol and diesel oil. Papers were demanded from the Sales man Narendra Singh who was present. Cash memos produced did not bear the names and signatures of the purchasers. THE sale of that date of diesel was 3696 litres while of petrol was 83 litres. THEre is a room behind the petrol pump. In that room in a plastic container sixty litres of diesel and petrol having a mixture of kerosene oil was found. THE container was giving a smell of kerosene oil. THE stock of petrol and diesel was 102262 litres and 3775 litres respectively. THEreafter meter reading was given in the FIR and a reference to quantities covered by cash memos was mentioned, summing up that, according to meter, the stock of diesel should have been 10245 litres while actually according to the stock dip it was 10626 litres that is 381 litres excess and in the like manner while stock of the petrol, according to the meter reading, should have been 278923 litres the actual quantity was 279491 and after making allowance for the sale on that date the position was that 414 litres of petrol was short in the stock. Further details were given. Some irregularities regarding meter reading of mobile oil were found as detailed in the FIR. THEn details were given concerning position of mobile oil Narendra Singh further stated there is no register regarding the daily sale of petrol and diesel 69 litres of diesel mixed with kerosene oil was found. Various sections under which offence is constituted is also mentioned. It would be found that recovery memos were prepared. THE sale of petrol and diesel mixed with kerosene oil was detected and various other irregularities were found including shortages and excesses.

(2.) IT is being urged that the difference of three litres concerning sale on that date is negligible. But apart from that after comparing quantities According to the meter and dip, excesses and shortages in considerable quantities were found. Stock register was wanting. Quite a substantial quantity of diesel and Petrol was kept in container in the room behind the petrol pump. The smells of the paper dip, when petrol and diesel was moved from the tanker to the pump as well as smell of the container both gave a smell of mixture of kerosene oil. Sample was also taken which was in the course of investigation Co be examined by the Public Analyst. Reliance was placed upon the case; of State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 SC 949 in that case High court quashed the investigation and the Supreme Court held that the FIR did not disclose commission of cognizable offence hence High court was justified. This ruling simply deals with the scope of the; powers that exists under Section 482 CrPC. The very nature of powers, namely inherent powers would indicate that if the Court is well convinced that there is a glaring abuse of any legal process it would not hesitate to intervene. The law concerning powers under Section 482 CrPC was first laid down in details in the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 In that case the grounds on which interference could be made were also enumerated. IT was held in that case that powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be sparingly exercised. The case of R. P. Kapur (supra) was relied upon in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 AWC 96 SC. The very principles were reiterated and the case of R. P. Kapur (supra) was also quoted. IT was again laid down that such powers are to be sparingly exercised in extra ordinarily situation. In the next case which is also of three Judges, namely, Khacheru Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1982 SC 784 it was 3gain laid down, rather with a great, emphasis, that pleas that any prima facie case is not made out etc. can very well be taken before the Magistrate himself and the Magistrate can very well consider such pleas in that case, what transpired was that the Magistrate summoned the accused persons, the Sessions Judge in revision set aside that order and discharged the accused person. A revision was then preferred before the High Court and the High Court agreed with the view of the Sessions Judge. IT was held by the Supreme Court that neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court could have interfered and both the orders were set aside. Having thus laid down all the important pronouncements on the point I may now examine whether it would be correct to say that the First Information Report does not disclose any offence. On the scrutiny of the First Information Report I am of the view that if the (?) controverted it would bear out a number of offence. Mixing of kerosene oil with diesel and petrol to the greatest suffering those who invest their Hard-earned money in their vehicles I think is a grave crime. In the like manner manupulation of stock is equally a grave matter which would constitute an offence on account of the breach of the conditions of the licence and the order under which petrol pumps are being run. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan, (supra) the FIR was quashed because the High Court as well as Supreme Court both were satisfied on consideration of the relevant materials that no offence is disclosed. So far as the principle of law is concerned, the following observations in the very pronouncement are of paramount Importance :