In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court of India has nullified a First Information Report (FIR) filed against MP Bombay Auto Service Petrol Diesel Pump and associated individuals.
The charges, encompassing Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, revolved around the alleged blending of hydrocarbons at the pump to create a substance resembling petrol and diesel.
The court's decision hinged on the absence of crucial expert opinion or a chemical analysis report to substantiate the chargesheet. The FIR had originated from the interception of a truck at the pump by the police, who collected samples for testing and issued a show cause notice due to the non-production of an invoice authorizing transportation through the tanker under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, resulting in a fine.
Despite repeated directives from the Court, State Authorities failed to submit a report. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, constituting the Bench, noted, "Along with the charge sheet, the respondent did not provide an expert's report regarding the exact nature of the liquid in the tanker... Now, it is too late for the State to submit a report after a lapse of more than two years."
The court emphasized that the Respondent had been alerted about the failure to produce the report seven months prior, but no efforts were made to obtain the report. Consequently, adverse inferences were drawn against the respondent, leading the court to conclude that the continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
The case involved Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), which issued invoices for the sale and transportation of fuel to the pump. However, due to a valve failure, the fuel was purportedly transferred to another tanker. Subsequently, the police intercepted the truck, seized it along with the liquid, and collected samples for testing, resulting in the registration of the FIR.
The Appellants argued that the samples met the required specifications. Nevertheless, a show cause notice was issued under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act for the non-production of an invoice authorizing transportation through the tanker, leading to a fine. The Appellants sought to quash the FIR, but the High Court dismissed their petition, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in its observations, highlighted that the chargesheet accused the Second Appellant of using machines to mix hydrocarbons, creating a substance resembling petrol and diesel. However, the court pointed out that, as of the last court order, the analysis report from the BPCL laboratory had not been received.
Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of an expert report from the Respondent regarding the nature of the liquid in the tanker, despite samples being sent to laboratories over two years ago. This lack of evidence supporting the claim that the liquid was not genuine petrol or diesel led the Court to conclude that the Respondent's failure to provide an expert report, especially after being alerted to the matter, constituted an abuse of the legal process.
Given these observed deficiencies and the overall lack of evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ultimately annulling the FIR.
Case: Suresh & Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3512 OF 2023.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy