Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Alleged Fuel Adulteration Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Suresh & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, quashing an FIR registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The case revolved around allegations of selling adulterated fuel, but the Court found that the prosecution failed to present material evidence to establish the claim.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from an FIR registered on October 14, 2021, in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were accused of selling a hydrocarbon mixture that allegedly resembled petrol and diesel but was not of standard quality. The key allegations were:

Invoices from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) showed that fuel was being transported to a petrol pump owned by one of the appellants.
Due to a valve failure in the tanker, the fuel was allegedly transferred to another tanker.
The police intercepted the tanker and collected samples, suspecting fuel adulteration.
The samples were sent for testing, but no conclusive expert report was produced.

The appellants challenged the FIR before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, but the High Court dismissed their petition. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Suresh & Ors.)

The appellants contended:

The FIR and chargesheet lacked evidence to prove that the fuel was adulterated.
The BPCL Quality Assurance Laboratory’s report, dated October 19, 2021, confirmed that the samples conformed to HSD (BSVI) specifications.
Despite repeated requests, the prosecution failed to produce any forensic report proving that the seized liquid was not petrol or diesel.
The continued prosecution without expert verification was an abuse of legal process.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh)

The prosecution countered these claims, arguing:

The police had recorded statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, where the appellants allegedly admitted to selling “concocted fuel.”
The investigation revealed that hydrocarbon mixtures were procured from Mumbai and Hazira and later sold as fuel.
Testing was pending, and the defense’s claims could only be examined during the trial.
The case involved violations of the Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the chargesheet and found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case:

The forensic test results of the seized samples were never produced, despite two years passing since the FIR.
The prosecution relied on allegations that hydrocarbons were mixed to resemble petrol and diesel, but no scientific proof was submitted.
The Quality Assurance Laboratory’s report confirmed that the fuel met the required specifications.
Without any expert confirmation, the allegation of cheating customers and causing financial losses to the government remained unsubstantiated.

Key Excerpt from the Judgment

“The entire foundation of the chargesheet is that there was a hydrocarbon mixture in the seized tanker, which looks precisely like petrol and diesel and smells like petrol and diesel. However, the prosecution has failed to produce any expert opinion confirming this claim. Hence, the continuation of the prosecution will be an abuse of the process of law.”

The Court also noted that the State was given multiple opportunities to produce the forensic report but failed to do so. The absence of expert verification after two years led the Court to conclude that there was no substantive basis for the prosecution.

Final Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court ruled:

The appeal was allowed, and the FIR was quashed.
The criminal proceedings against the appellants were set aside.
The Court observed that the prosecution had no material evidence to justify the continuation of the trial.

This ruling underscores the importance of forensic evidence in criminal cases involving allegations of adulteration. The judgment reinforces that prosecutions must be based on concrete scientific proof rather than mere allegations.

Petitioner Name: Suresh & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Place Of Incident: Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 24-11-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: suresh-&-ors.-vs-state-of-madhya-prad-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-24-11-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in unfair trade practices
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Pankaj Mithal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category