Supreme Court Strikes Down Chargesheet, Demands Expert Opinion in Alleged Fuel Adulteration Case

In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court dismissed a chargesheet that accused several individuals of deceiving customers by purportedly supplying an adulterated mixture instead of genuine petrol or diesel. The court, critical of the prosecution’s reliance on the chargesheet without a supporting expert opinion on the seized liquid’s nature, declared the case untenable.

The absence of an expert’s evaluation cast a shadow over the entire case.

The Court pointedly remarked, “The charge sheet’s entire premise relies on the presence of a hydrocarbon mixture in the seized tanker, resembling petrol and diesel in appearance and smell. However, the prosecution failed to furnish an expert’s report detailing the precise nature of the liquid. Without evidence in the charge sheet clarifying the liquid’s nature, no offense can be established.”

In a scathing critique, the Court underscored the prosecution’s negligence, highlighting that despite a court notice, the respondent neglected to procure the crucial report over the past seven months.

“It’s now too late for the State to submit a report after more than two years. The respondent has shown no effort in obtaining the report during the last seven months. An adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent. Therefore, continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the legal process,” added the Court.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, heard the appeal against a MP High Court decision that rejected the appellant’s plea to quash an FIR under section 482, 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 when allegations surfaced that a hydrocarbon mixture was discovered in a seized tanker sold by the appellants, misrepresented as petrol or diesel. The appellant, the tanker’s driver, was apprehended by police while unloading at the 3rd appellant’s petrol pump. The 2nd appellant managed Shivam Industries, while the 3rd appellant faced a show-cause notice under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act (EC Act). The subsequent order imposed a fine due to the appellant’s failure to produce an authorized invoice for the tanker’s transportation and a lack of permission to open its seal and lock. The charge sheet was filed on February 11, 2022.

The Court noted that the BPCL laboratory had not submitted the analysis results to date. Conversely, the appellants relied on a test report dated October 19, 2021, from the Quality Assurance Laboratory, Mangliya Depot, Indore of BPCL, confirming that the samples adhered to the HSD (BSVI) specifications.

Expressing dissatisfaction with the prosecution, the Court highlighted that despite the FIR being registered on October 14, 2021, and the charge sheet filed on February 11, 2022, the expert’s report on the liquid’s nature was still absent. In light of these circumstances, the Court opined that an adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent.

The appeal found favor with the Court, leading to the overturning of the High Court’s judgment in the case of Suresh v. State of MP.