SHIV PRASAD AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application under Sec. 438 Cr. P. C. has been tiled in F. I. R. No. 328/86 registered at police station Kotwali, Bharatpur on July 11, 1986 in a case under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) On Oct. 18, 1985 Assistant District Supply Officer, Bharatpur inspected the Firm M/s Shiv Prasad Gupta and Sons, Station Road, Bharatpur which is running a diesel and petrol pump on Station Road. The Firm is a licensee under Rajasthan Petroleum Products Licencing and Control Order, 1979. Three samples of diesel were drawn and signatures of one of the partners Hari Shanker present on the spot were obtained. This sample was taken after paying the price of the diesel and was later on sent for Public Analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory on Oct. 24, 1985. The Forensic Science Laboratory opined that the sample was adulterated and kerosene was added to it and the case is under investigation. The accused apprehending his arrest moved an application for anticipatory bail which was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. When the application was filed in this Court it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the report filed by the Forensic Science Laboratory is absolutely laconic and it is not known as to what was the adulteration as the data's have not been mentioned therein. Other points were also agitated and this court directed the Public Prosecutor to produce the diary vide order, dated July 28, 1986. When the petitioner stated that there was no adulteration in the diesel and it is confirmed to the I. S. I. standard the learned Public Prosecutor on Aug. 4, 1986 wanted time to consult the officials of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter the case came up on Aug. 6, 1986 before me. I, in my order, dated Aug. 6, 1986, mentioned that Shri R. C. Sharma, Deputy Director Chemistry, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur attended the court and stated that the sample was found adulterated because flash point: Abel 0C should have been 38 as per the test applied by method P. 20. He produced before me a book-let published by I S. I. Manak Bhawan, New Delhi printed in 1984. Mr. Dhankhar thereafter submitted that the book-let is out-dated and not up-to-date. His submission was that the figures of 38 have been reduced to 32 by an amendment in 1985. I, therefore, directed the Registry to seek a clarification from the Chief Quality Control Manager as well as Indian Standard Institution. Letters were written by the Registry on Aug. 7, 1986 but no reply has been received till date. However reply has been received by the Firm both from I. S. R. as well as Indian Oil Corporation and the same has been placed on record.

(3.) In letter No. PCDC 3/T of 1986-80-07 of the Director (P & C). Indian Standard Institution, New Delhi, wherein the copy of the third amendment was supplied to them. This amendment reads as under : "Amendment No. 3 Oct. 1985. To IS : 1460-1974 Specification For Diesel Fuels (Second Revision)