The Supreme Court has recently invalidated a chargesheet in a case where the accused were accused of deceiving numerous customers by providing a contaminated substance instead of genuine petrol or diesel. The Court stressed the inadequacy of the prosecution's case, pointing out the absence of an expert opinion on the seized liquid's nature.
The crux of the matter revolved around the charge that the appellants had been distributing a hydrocarbon mixture masquerading as petrol or diesel, thereby allegedly cheating consumers. However, the Court found the case untenable due to the prosecution's reliance on the chargesheet without accompanying expert testimony regarding the exact composition of the seized liquid.
In a scathing critique, the Court highlighted the negligence on the part of the prosecution. The absence of an expert report, even after a court notice, was deemed a significant lapse. The Court emphasized that the entire basis of the chargesheet rested on the assumption that the seized tanker contained a hydrocarbon mixture resembling and smelling like petrol and diesel. Without an expert's report on the liquid's precise nature, the Court contended that no offense could be established.
The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution's lack of diligence, noting that, despite a court notice, the respondent failed to obtain the crucial report over the past seven months. It stated that it was now too late for the State to file a report after a gap of more than two years and suggested that the prosecution's continuation would be an abuse of the legal process.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, heard the appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's petition to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC for offenses under Sections 420 (cheating), 120-B, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The case originated in October 2021, with allegations of a hydrocarbon mixture being found in a seized tanker sold by the appellants as petrol or diesel. The driver of the tanker, the first appellant, was intercepted by police while unloading at the third appellant's petrol pump. The second appellant served as the manager of Shivam Industries, and the third appellant faced a show-cause notice under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act. Subsequent penalties were imposed, citing the failure to produce an authorized invoice and a lack of permission to open the tanker's seal.
The Court observed that the BPCL laboratory had not submitted the result of the analysis to date. In contrast, the appellants relied on a test report from the Quality Assurance Laboratory, Mangliya Depot, Indore of BPCL, dated October 19, 2021, confirming that the samples conformed to HSD (BSVI) specifications.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the prosecution, the Court noted that although the FIR was registered on October 14, 2021, and the chargesheet was filed on February 11, 2022, the expert's report on the liquid found in the seized tanker had not been produced. In light of these circumstances, the Court suggested that an adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent.
Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The Supreme Court's decision underscored the importance of a comprehensive and timely presentation of evidence, particularly expert opinions, in establishing the foundation of a criminal case.
TAGS: Supreme Court chargesheet adulterated mixture petrol diesel expert opinion prosecution nature of liquid case foundation
