Supreme Court quashes FIR due to lack of expert report in fuel adulteration case: Suresh & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) INSC 1021 (24 November 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 1021

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a criminal case for fuel adulteration proceed without a conclusive expert report on the nature of the seized substance? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the prosecution failed to provide an expert analysis of the allegedly adulterated fuel. This judgment underscores the necessity of concrete evidence in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving technical or scientific analysis. The bench consisted of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR registered against the appellants for offences under Section 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The allegations stemmed from the seizure of a tanker carrying what was suspected to be adulterated fuel.

On October 7, 2021, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) issued invoices for the sale and transportation of 9 kiloliters each of petrol and diesel to MP Bombay Auto Service Petrol Diesel Pump, owned by the third appellant. The fuel was initially loaded into one tanker but was later transferred to another due to a valve failure. On October 11, 2021, the police intercepted the tanker while it was unloading fuel at the third appellant’s petrol pump.

The Station House Officer (SHO) recorded statements from the first and second appellants, who were the driver and manager of Shivam Industries, respectively. The police seized the truck and collected samples from the tanker’s four compartments. The appellants were arrested on October 13, 2021, and the samples were sent to the State Forensic Laboratory and BPCL Quality Assurance Laboratory, Indore.

The FIR was registered on October 14, 2021. The BPCL Quality Assurance Laboratory submitted a report on October 19, 2021, stating the samples conformed to required specifications. However, a show-cause notice was issued to the third appellant under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for not having the correct invoice for the tanker and for not seeking permission to open the tanker’s seal. The charge sheet was filed on February 11, 2022.

Timeline:

Arguments

The appellants argued that the charge sheet lacked any expert report confirming the nature of the seized liquid. They contended that without such a report, there was no basis to allege that the liquid was a hydrocarbon mixture being passed off as petrol or diesel. The appellants highlighted that the BPCL Quality Assurance Laboratory report indicated the samples conformed to specifications, which was not part of the charge sheet.

The State, on the other hand, relied on the statement of the first appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where he allegedly admitted to picking up ‘concocted fuel’ from Shivam Industries. The State also argued that the issues raised by the appellants could only be decided after evidence was presented during trial and that there was a violation of the Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel Oil (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005.

The following table demonstrates the arguments of both the sides:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

• Whether the FIR and the consequent charge sheet could be sustained in the absence of an expert report on the nature of the liquid found in the seized tanker?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

Expert Opinions:

• The court noted that the prosecution’s case was based on the allegation that a hydrocarbon mixture was found in the seized tanker, which was being sold as petrol or diesel. However, no expert opinion was provided to substantiate this claim.
• The court observed that the State Forensic Laboratory and BPCL Quality Assurance Laboratory were both sent samples for testing. While the BPCL report indicated the samples conformed to specifications, this report was not part of the charge sheet. The court also noted that the State failed to produce any expert report that confirmed the seized liquid was a hydrocarbon mixture.

Legal Provisions:

• The court referred to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the admissibility of statements made by an accused while in police custody.
• The court also noted the violation of the Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel Oil (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005, as argued by the State.
• The court also referred to Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, under which the FIR was registered.

The following table demonstrates how the authorities were considered by the court:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and charge sheet. The court emphasized that the prosecution’s case was entirely based on the allegation that the seized liquid was a hydrocarbon mixture, and without an expert report, this allegation could not be substantiated.

The following table demonstrates how the submissions made by both sides were treated by the Court:

The following table demonstrates how the authorities were viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence, specifically the absence of an expert report on the nature of the seized liquid. The court emphasized that the entire case of the prosecution hinged on the allegation that the liquid was a hydrocarbon mixture being sold as petrol or diesel. Without an expert’s opinion, this allegation could not be substantiated, and the continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law. The court also noted the delay in obtaining the expert report, despite the samples being sent for testing more than two years prior. This delay further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The following table demonstrates the sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court:

The following table demonstrates the ratio of fact vs law that influenced the court:

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the argument that the issues could be decided during trial, but rejected it because the prosecution failed to provide the foundational evidence. The court also noted that the State had ample time to obtain the expert report, but failed to do so.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Though FIR was registered on 14th October 2021 and the charge sheet was filed on 11th February 2022, even as of today, the expert’s report on the nature of the liquid found in the seized tanker has not been produced.”

“In the absence of the report, taking the charge sheet as it is, no material is placed on record to show that the liquid in the tanker was neither diesel nor petrol but a mixture of hydrocarbons.”

“Hence, the continuation of the prosecution will be an abuse of the process of law.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ An expert report is crucial in cases involving allegations of fuel adulteration, especially when the prosecution’s case relies on the nature of the seized substance.
• ✓ The absence of a necessary expert report can lead to the quashing of an FIR and charge sheet, highlighting the importance of evidence in criminal cases.
• ✓ The prosecution must ensure that all necessary evidence, including expert opinions, is part of the charge sheet to substantiate the allegations made.
• ✓ Delay in obtaining expert reports can weaken the prosecution’s case, and adverse inferences may be drawn against the prosecution.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the quashing of the FIR No. 727 dated 14th October 2021, registered with Kishanpura District, Indore, and the consequent charge sheet filed thereon.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an FIR and the consequent charge sheet cannot be sustained in the absence of an expert report on the nature of the liquid found in the seized tanker, especially in cases of alleged fuel adulteration. This judgment emphasizes the importance of expert evidence in cases involving technical or scientific analysis. It also underscores that the prosecution must provide the foundational evidence to support the allegations made in the charge sheet.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Suresh & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh highlights the crucial role of expert evidence in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving technical or scientific analysis. The court’s decision to quash the FIR and charge sheet underscores the necessity of concrete evidence to support the prosecution’s allegations and serves as a reminder that the absence of such evidence can lead to the dismissal of a case.