IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 OP.No. 14423 of 1999(P) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JENSON, (PALATHINGAL HOUSE, KATTOOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT), PALATHINGAL AUTOFUELS AND SERVICES, IRINJALAKUDA, TRICHUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION, IRINJALAKKUDA, TRICHUR DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. REMANI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 23323 OF 1999 IN OP 14423 OF 1999 DISMISSED 30.6.2009 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF 1990 ORDER VIZ MOTOR SPIRIT AND HIGH SPEED DIESEL (PREVENTION OF MALPRACTICES IN SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION) ORDER 1990 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF FIR SUBMITTED BY THE ;POLICE IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR EC ACT CASES, TRICHUR. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.5.99 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE IN CRL.M.P. 290/98 IN ST NO. 34/95 OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR EC ACT CASES, TRICHUR. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY NEWS PAPER DATED 5.6.1995 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O. P. NO. 14423 OF 1999 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT O.P. is filed challenging Ext. P2 FIR and Ext.P3 order declining to discharge the petitioner by the Special Judge, before whom petitioner stood charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that a sample of diesel taken from his petrol outlet on 16.9.1992 was found to be adultered with kerosene. In fact samples of petrol as well as diesel were taken simultaneously for chemical examination and diesel sample was stated to be adultered with kerosene. Petitioner's case is that after issuance of Ext.P1, under the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractices in Supply and Distribution) Order, 1990 the Inspector ceased to have authority to launch complaint against the petitioner. Besides this he has raised the contention that he has not made any 2 adulteration and market value of kerosene during the relevant time was more than the price of diesel. Further it is pointed out that petrol sample taken for examination was found to be without any adulteration whatsoever. Even though Original Petition prima facie is not maintainable, it is seen that this Court admitted the O.P. and granted stay ten years back. Therefore at this distance of time, I do not think this Court will be justified in dismissing the case as one not maintainable. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the main allegation of the petitioner that second respondent wanted free of cost five litres each of petrol and diesel and on failure he arranged police to take samples and booked the case against him. Even though a statement is filed by the respondents, there is no mention against the serious allegation made by the petitioner against the second respondent, who was Circle Inspector of Police in charge of the area. If the petitioner's allegations are true, then the case may be a manipulated one against the petitioner. The case is pending for the last 17 years and it is not known whether other samples taken are retained for the petitioner to demand re-examination as his case is that he supplied the same fuel supplied by 3 the Hindustan Petroleum Company. Even though samples were taken on 16.9.1992, FIR was filed on 11.3.1993. There is no explanation about the delay in launching the complaint. Petitioner's case is that even though he is running the petrol outlet for several years, there is no allegation against him and now a case is foisted against him only because he denied free supply of petrol and diesel to the CI of Police. In view of the allegations in the OP which remain unchallenged by the respondent and since offence took place 17 years back, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt, more so because even charge is not framed after 17 years and the matter is still at the crime stage, i.e., Crime No. 84/1993 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, which is transferred and renumbered as ST No.34 of 1995, Special Judge for Economic Offences, Trichur. Consequently I quash crime No. 84 of 1993 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda and allow the O.P. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4