Court affirms that when a charge sheet is filed, the trial court should evaluate the evidence rather than quash proceedings prematurely.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi appearing for the respondent State.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not trading in the bio diesel but the normal paraffin. He referred to (Annexure B) and submitted that normal paraffin was traded and he also referred to (Annexure C) and submitted that the normal paraffin does not fall in the definition of the Essential Commodities Act attracting the offence under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act for it is not a inflammable article. Hence, the offence under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. He therefore, submitted that the filing of the FIR is abuse of process of law and the petitioner cannot be send to face trial.

2.2 Upon above submissions he submits to allow this petition and to quash the questioned FIR.

3. Per contra learned APP has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench whereby learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Poojara appearing for learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli sought time to amend the prayer clause as charge sheet has already filed. Further he would submit that the FSL report obtained during the investigation shows the presence of pretroleum hydrocarbon in the sample drawn from the tanker which prima facie establishes that the material transported and used for sale of purchases was not the parafin but it was biodiesel and he would further submit that since the learned Trial Court has seized with charge sheet papers, this Court may not examine the issue.

3.1 On above submissions he would submit to dismiss the petition.

4. I have learned advocates for both the sides and also perused the documents on record.

5. The case of the petitioner is that they were not dealing with bio diesel but it was normal parafin and it does not fall within the definition of Essential Commodities Act and does not attract the offence under provisions of the Essential Commodities Act , neither it is an inflammable article attracting the offence under Section 285 of the IPC. The fallacy of the argument can be seen from the report of the FSL which indicates the sample which was drawn shows the presence of the petroleum hydrocarbon which is normally found in the petroleum products.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any substance in the petition. At this juncture I may refer to the gist of the FIR as under :

“12. It is in such a way that accused No.1 stole truck- tanker No.GJOICV-3049 sent 12000 liters of combustible petroleum to the house of accused No.2 for sale. Accused No. 3 and 4 transferred 4500 liters of combustible petroleum from the truck-tanker in the possession of accused No.5 to the house of accused No. 2. Accused No. 3 and 4 transferred 4500 liters of combustible petroleum to their tractor-tanker without their number and filled 7500 liters in the truck -tanker totaling 12000 liters of combustible petroleum worth Rs. 7,80,000/- and truck tanker NO. GJDICV-3049 worth Rs. 10,00,000/- and tractor tanker worth Rs. 5,00,000/- and electric motor worth Rs. 10,000/- and pipe worth Rs. 1000/- and e-way bill worth Rs. 1000/- and e-way bill worth Rs.00/00 and three mobile phones worth Rs. 12000/- totaling Rs. 23,03,000/- were found along with flammable petroleum endangering lives of some people and committing a crime by committing act of negligence by committing a crime.”

7. The aforesaid gist of the FIR shows that the accused No.1 sent 12000 liter to the accused No.