1997 Supreme(All) 1180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. MATHUR, I. M. QUDDUSI
KRISHNA KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
SR.SUPDT.OF POLICE, BULANDSHAHR - Respondents
CRI. M. W. P. 2398 Of 1996
Decided On : 09/29/1997

The Control Order, 1990, is a valid and applicable law governing the prevention of malpractices in the supply and distribution of motor spirit and high-speed diesel. Adulteration of these products is defined as the introduction of any foreign substance illegally/unauthorisedly, resulting in non-conformity with the requirements specified in Schedule I of the Control Order.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - [SECTION 3/7] - [CONTROL ORDER, 1990] - [SCHEDULE I] - ADULTERATION OF PETROL AND DIESEL - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF CONTROL ORDER - PROCEDURE FOR INSPECTION, TAKING OF SAMPLES AND ANALYSIS - ROLE OF LABORATORIES - INTERPRETATION OF ANALYSIS REPORT - EXTENT OF ADULTERATION - ROLE OF GOVERNMENT ORDERS AND CIRCULARS - AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS AND CIRCULARS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW, ORDERS HAVING FORCE OF LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS - EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT ORDERS ON CONTROL ORDERS - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO DIRECT NON-REGISTRATION OF CASES OR WITHDRAWAL OF PROSECUTIONS - RIGHT TO SECOND ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - DIRECTIONS TO STRICTLY ENFORCE CONTROL ORDERS.

Fact of the Case:

Numerous writ petitions were filed challenging the First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (E.C. Act) for adulteration of petrol and diesel. The petitioners contended that the FIRs were vague as they did not specify the extent of adulteration and that the prosecution was liable to be quashed. The Court directed the submission of reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Indian Oil Corporation regarding the procedure and tests carried out for analyzing samples of petrol and diesel.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Control Order, 1990, made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act, governs the prevention of malpractices in the supply and distribution of motor spirit and high-speed diesel. Adulteration of these products is defined as the introduction of any foreign substance illegally/unauthorisedly, resulting in non-conformity with the requirements specified in Schedule I of the Control Order. 2. The density of the product at the dealer's tank or retail point is a crucial factor in determining adulteration. Variation in density beyond the prescribed limit from the density recorded in the morning or after the last receipt indicates adulteration. 3. The procedure for inspection, taking of samples, and analysis is laid down in the Control Order. Authorized officers can inspect and take samples, and the analysis report from laboratories specified in Schedule III is conclusive and admissible without formal proof. 4. Administrative or executive orders issued by the State Government or circulars issued by oil companies regarding inspection, sampling, and analysis are without legal authority and cannot be taken into consideration. 5. A petition to quash an FIR or investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be entertained if the FIR alleges that the analysis report showed adulteration. 6. The State Government cannot direct non-registration of cases or withdrawal of prosecutions involving breach or violation of a Control Order made by the Central Government. 7. A Control Order issued by the State Government cannot be stayed or suspended by an administrative or executive order. 8. The petitioners' contention that the FIRs were vague was rejected as the analysis reports showed adulteration, which is sufficient to establish a breach of the Control Order. 9. The Court observed that adulteration of diesel with kerosene is widespread and amounts to cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issues: 1. Whether the FIRs were vague due to the lack of specification of the extent of adulteration. 2. Whether the Control Order, 1990, and its provisions, including the definition of adulteration and the procedure for inspection, sampling, and analysis, were valid and applicable. 3. Whether administrative or executive orders issued by the State Government or circulars issued by oil companies could override or modify the provisions of the Control Order. 4. Whether the State Government had the authority to direct non-registration of cases or withdrawal of prosecutions involving breach or violation of a Control Order made by the Central Government. 5. Whether the petitioners' right to a second analysis of the sample was violated, and whether this violated Article 21 of the Constitution. 6. Whether the scope of judicial review extended to quashing FIRs or investigations based on allegations of adulteration in the analysis report.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Control Order, 1990, is a valid and applicable law governing the prevention of malpractices in the supply and distribution of motor spirit and high-speed diesel. 2. Adulteration of these products is defined as the introduction of any foreign substance illegally/unauthorisedly, resulting in non-conformity with the requirements specified in Schedule I of the Control Order. 3. The density of the product at the dealer's tank or retail point is a crucial factor in determining adulteration. Variation in density beyond the prescribed limit from the density recorded in the morning or after the last receipt indicates adulteration. 4. The procedure for inspection, taking of samples, and analysis is laid down in the Control Order. Authorized officers can inspect and take samples, and the analysis report from laboratories specified in Schedule III is conclusive and admissible without formal proof. 5. Administrative or executive orders issued by the State Government or circulars issued by oil companies regarding inspection, sampling, and analysis are without legal authority and cannot be taken into consideration. 6. A petition to quash an FIR or investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be entertained if the FIR alleges that the analysis report showed adulteration. 7. The State Government cannot direct non-registration of cases or withdrawal of prosecutions involving breach or violation of a Control Order made by the Central Government. 8. A Control Order issued by the State Government cannot be stayed or suspended by an administrative or executive order. 9. The petitioners' contention that the FIRs were vague was rejected as the analysis reports showed adulteration, which is sufficient to establish a breach of the Control Order. 10. The Court observed that adulteration of diesel with kerosene is widespread and amounts to cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed. The respondents were commanded by a writ of mandamus to strictly enforce all the Control Orders issued with regard to petroleum products.