Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE:
PC ACT (CBI) - 04, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI.
(1) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 06/2024
RC NO. 09(E)/2010/CBI/EOU-VII/NEW DELHI.
SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
S/O SH. KISHAN CHAND,
R/O 3/6, UNDER HILL LANE,
CIVIL LINE, DELHI. ..Revisionist/Petitioner No.1
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI. ……..Respondent.
(2) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 08/2024
RC NO. 09(E)/2010/CBI/EOU-VII/NEW DELHI.
SH. AVNISH GUPTA
S/O LATE SH. RAJENDER PRASAD GUPTA,
R/O 135, KISHANPURI,
NEAR BAGHPAT GATE,
MEERUT, U.P. …..Revisionist/Petitioner No.2
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI. ……..Respondent
(3) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 09/2024
RC NO. 09(E)/2010/CBI/EOU-VII/NEW DELHI.
SH. DEEPAK GOEL,
S/O LATE SH. YAGYA PRAKASH GOEL,
R/O C-12, RAJKAMAL VIHAR,
MEERUT, U.P. …..Revisionist/Petitioner No.3
Page 1/19
-- 1 of 19 --
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI. ……..Respondent
(4) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 10/2024
RC NO. 09(E)/2010/CBI/EOU-VII/NEW DELHI.
SH. BHARAT BHUSHAN
S/O SH. BODH RAJ DODEJA,
R/O 742, NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI. …..Revisionist/Petitioner No.4
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI. ……..Respondent
(5) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 12/2024
RC NO. 09(E)/2010/CBI/EOU-VII/NEW DELHI.
M/S. BSM PETROCHEM PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH. BHARAT BHUSHAN,
104, SHIVLOK HOUSE-II,
KARAMPURA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI. …..Revisionist/Petitioner No.5
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI. ……..Respondent
(6) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 13/2024
RC NO. 09(E)/2010/CBI/EOU-VII/NEW DELHI.
Page 2/19
-- 2 of 19 --
M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISES UNIT-II
THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH. AVNISH GUPTA,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
VILLAGE BADNAULI, HAPUR,
MODI NAGAR ROAD, HAPUR,
DISTRICT GHAZIABAD, U. P. ..Revisionist/Petitioner No.6
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI. ……..Respondent
(7) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 14/2024
RC NO. 09(E)/2010/CBI/EOU-VII/NEW DELHI.
M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISES, MEERUT
THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH. DEEPAK GOEL,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
D-5-6, UDYOG PURAM, PARTAPUR,
DELHI ROAD, MEERUT, UP. …..Revisionist/Petitioner No.7
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI. ...……..Respondent
Date of Institution : 30.04.2024
Arguments concluded on : 06.07.2024
Order passed on : 12.07.2024
(8) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 15/2024
RC NO. 09(E)/2010/CBI/EOU-VII/NEW DELHI.
SH. SANTANU DASS
S/O LATE SUKUMAR DASS
R/O H.NO. 837, ICHAPUR MANICKTALA
Page 3/19
-- 3 of 19 --
POST ICHAPUR, NORTH BARRACKPORE (M)
NORTH 24 PARGANS
WEST BENGAL -743144 …. Revisionist/Petitioner No.8
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
EOU-VII, NEW DELHI .......Respondent
Date of Institution : 21.05.2024
Arguments concluded on: 06.07.2024
Order passed on : 12.07.2024
O R D E R
1. This common order shall dispose off 8 criminal revision
petitions u/S 397 preferred by the revisionists/petitioners no.1 to
8 against the order dated 13.02.2024 (hereinafter referred as
“the impugned order”) passed by Ld. ACMM in criminal case
No. CBI/94/2019 in RC No. 9E/2010 under Section 120-B r/w
417 IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 7 of Essential Commodities
Act 1955 and substantive offences thereof in case titled ‘CBI V.
Narender Kumar etc’. Vide the impugned order charges against
the revisionists herein have been framed for the aforesaid
offences.
2. It is, inter alia, stated in the petitions filed by
revisionist/petitioner no.1 to 7 herein that one FIR bearing RC
No.9(E)/2010/EOU-VII/New Delhi was registered. The
investigation was carried out and after conclusion of the
investigation, chargehsheet was filed. Ld. Trial Court took the
cognizance and summoned the revisionists herein. The main
Page 4/19
-- 4 of 19 --
allegations in the chargesheet qua the revisionists/petitioners are
as follows:
(i) That BSM Petrochem Pvt Ltd, M/s Bharat Enterprises -II
Ghaziabad and M/s Bharat Enterprises, Meerut (Petitioner no.5,
Petitioner no. 6 & Petitioner no.7 respectively herein & Accused
No.7,Accused no.9 & A-8 respectively before the Ld. Trial
Court) used to procure Solvent, Pentane etc for using as raw
material for production of thinner and other products and sell the
said products to various firms. Revisionist namely Sanjeev
Aggarwal ( Petitioner No.1 herein & A-3 before the Ld. Trial
Court) and Bharat Bhushan (Petitioner No.4 herein & A-4 before
the Ld. Trial Court) are the directors of the firm M/s Bharat
Petrochem Pvt Ltd.
(ii) It is further alleged that Revisionist/A-3 Sanjeev Aggarwal
engaged two persons namely Sh. Narender Kumar (A-1 before
the Ld. Trial Court) and Santanu Das (Petitioner No.8 herein &
A-2 before the Ld. Trial Court) through Shiv Datt and Niraj
Kumar who got opened two firms namely M/s Shivam Electrical
& Hardware Store and M/s Mahalaxmi Trading Company. They
got a bank account opened in the name of the said respective
firms at ICICI Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. They also
handed over all the signed blank cheques to Revisionist/A-3
Sanjeev Aggarwal as per his direction.
(iii) That BSM Petrochem Pvt Ltd has shown sale of thinner to
M/s Mahalaxmi Trading Co and transaction for the sale was done
between them through current account of the said firm being
Page 5/19
-- 5 of 19 --
maintained at ICICI Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
Revisionist/A-3 Sanjeev Aggarwal and Revisionist/A-4 Bharat
Bhushan signed the invoices showing sale of thinner to M/s
Mahalaxmi Trading Co.
(iv) That it is further alleged that M/s Bharat Enterprises (A-9)
had shown sale of thinner to M/s Shivam Electrical & Hardware
Store for which the transaction was done between them through
the bank account maintained at ICICI Bank Punjabi Bagh and
ICICI Bank Civil Lines Merrut .
(v) That it is further alleged that Sanjeev Aggarwal and Bharat
Bhushan, Directors of BSM PetroChem Pvt Ltd. signed the
invoices showing sale of thinner to Mahalaxmi Trading
Company. The details were also submitted with District Supplier
Officer Meerut with respect to receipt various raw material and
its consumption by M/s BSM Petro Chem Meerut wherein they
have shown M/s Mahalaxmi Trading as one of the purchaser of
thinner which after investigation was found to be fake.
(vi) It is further alleged that M/s Bharat Enterprises, Meerut
and M/s Bharat Enterprises II, Ghaziabad also in their returns
filed with DSO, Meerut have shown sale of thinner to M/s
Mahalaxmi Trading Company and Shivam Electrical &
Hardware Store which after investigation was found to be fake.
It is further alleged that the sale of thinner sold to M/s Shivam
Electricalal Hardware Store was alleged to be transported
through vehicle No. UP 13H 5141 and UP 13H 4154. Both the
vehicles were later on found to be motorcycles.
Page 6/19
-- 6 of 19 --
3. It is further pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that thinner
and organic composite solvent produced by using Naphtha as raw
material does not fall within the category of Essential
Commodities Act 1955. Even the notification dated 21.11.2001
issued by the Central Government does not contain or include
thinner or organic composite solvent. The Rule 3 of Solvent
Reffinate & Slop ( Acquisition, Sale, Storage & Prevention of use
in Automobiles) Order 2000 (hereinafter referred in short as
“Solvent Order 2000) is relevant herein. It is pleaded that only
Rule 3 (4) is applicable qua them as they have used solvents to
manufacture organic compounds solvents or thinner for which
the returns were regularly filed with the office of DSO, Meerut,
U.P. Reliance has also been placed upon Clause-3 of Order of
Naphtha (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in
Automobiles), 2000. Rule 3(v) of Naphtha Order,2000 is
applicable in the present case wherein Naphtha was used for
manufacturing of thinner, organic composite solvent-I and
organic composite solvent-II. Further, in lieu of the same end use
certificates were filled before the State and Civil Supplies
Authorities which are part of chargesheet. Not only CBI but also
the Ld. Trial Court overlooked the said documents. Ld. Trial
Court arrived at the incorrect finding without considering the said
documents.
4. After hearing the arguments, the Ld. Trial Court was
pleased to frame the charges against the revisionists/petitioners
herein. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated
13.02.2024, the petitioners/revisionists have filed the present
revision petitions on the following grounds:
Page 7/19
-- 7 of 19 --
(a) That Ld. ACMM passed the impugned order in utter
violation of the law laid down and thus, committed grave error
by arriving at the conclusion of framing charge against the
revisionists herein.
(b) That Ld. ACMM failed to appreciate that the present case
does not fall under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and no
offence under the said Act has been committed by the revisionists
herein. The reliance in this regard is placed upon the RTI
information received from Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Govt of
India which was filed on record but has been ignored by the Ld.
Trial Court. The sale of organic composite solvent, reducer or
thinner is not covered under the Solvent Order 2000 and hence,
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 being not applicable.
(c) That Ld. ACMM has exceeded its jurisdiction by passing
the impugned order of framing charges against the revisionists
herein.
(d) That Ld. ACMM has committed grave error by not
appreciating Order 3 of Naphtha ( Acquisition, Sale, Storage and
Prevention of use in Automobiles), 2000 in proper perspective.
(e) That M/s BSM Petrochem Pvt Ltd was engaged in sale of
thinner and organic composite solvent as finished products and
not Naphtha or Solvent.
Page 8/19
-- 8 of 19 --
(f) That Ld. ACMM failed to consider the returns of various
raw materials, its consumption and Naphtha etc. which were
being regularly filed by BSM Petrochem Pvt Ltd with DSO
Office, Meerut, U.P. Even the notification dated 21.11.2001
wherein 15 commodities were notified by the Central
Government under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was not
appreciated by the Ld. Trial Court.
(g) That it is the well settled law that not only the
prima facie
material is to be seen at the stage of framing of charge but also
appreciate the defence material of sterling quality in rare cases.
(h) Reliance has been placed upon judgment viz; Rukmini
Narvekar V. Vijaya Satardekar (2008) 14 SCC 1.
6. In addition to the grounds taken, Ld. Counsel Dr. Sushil
Kumar Gupta for the revisionists/petitioners no.1 to 7 as well as
Ld. Counsel Shri Vikas Sharma, Ld. Counsel for
revisionist/petitioner no.8 have argued that in the present case
they are not challenging framing of the charges under Section
420 and 120B IPC. Their bone of contention is qua applicability
of Section 3 r/w Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955
which prescribed for punishment of violation of Rule 3 of
Solvent Order 2000.
6.1 Further, it is argued that the prosecution documents itself
reflect that they had filed the End-Use Certificate with the
concerned District Supplies Officer from whom the licence was
obtained. Their case at best is with respect to the compliance of
Page 9/19
-- 9 of 19 --
Rule 3(4) of Solvent Order 2000. In this regard, reliance is
placed upon D-3. Therefore, on the said aspect, there is no
violation on the part of the revisionists/petitioners, but their
argument on the said aspect has not been even discussed in the
impugned order.
6.2 It is further argued that the second most important aspect
in the petition is the RTI information sought by the
revisionists/petitioners herein from Ministry of Consumer Affairs
Food and Public Distribution, Govt of India wherein they have
categorically stated that the sale or trading of Thinners or
Organic Solvent or Reducer are not covered under the Schedule
of Solvent Order 2000. The said unrebutted document has not
been even discussed by the Ld. Trial Court. Reliance placed
upon the judgment titled State of Orissa V. Debendra Nath
Padhi , AIR 2005 SC 359 for discarding the said document is
misplaced and ignores the settled law with respect to unrebutted
documents of sterling quality. In this reliance is placed upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Rukmini
Narvekar (supra) case.
7. Per contra, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI vehemently opposed the
present revision petitions by arguing that there is no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court. It is
argued that the Ld. Trial Court rightly placed reliance upon the
Constitutional Bench judgment of State of Orissa V. Debendra
Nath Padhi (supra) case thereby discarding the RTI information
filed on record on behalf of the revisionists/petitioners.
Page 10/19
-- 10 of 19 --
7.1 It is further argued that the said RTI information, in a way,
is a misleading document. It is the case of the prosecution that
licence holders namely BSM Petrochem Pvt Ltd. (A-7), Bharat
Enterprises Unit II (A-8) and Bharat Enterprises Meerut (A-9) in
compliance of the said licence condition as well as 3(4) of
Solvent Order 2000 filed false End-Use Certificate. The CBI is
not merely alleging that petitioners/revisionists had not sold
thinner or organic solvent to the alleged buyers, rather there are
the allegations that they diverted the controlled raw products i.e
Naphtha, solvent, pentane etc. Therefore, it is a case, in a way,
of non-filing of End-Use Certificate and diverting the petroleum
products and thereby violating Rule 3(4) of Solvent Order 2000
which is punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 7 of Essential
Commodities Act 1955.
8. The separate reply to the aforesaid revision petitions has
also been filed by the CBI.
9. Heard and considered.
10. The revisionists/petitioners have approached this Court by
invoking the jurisdiction of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C
against the impugned order framing of charge of the Ld. Trial
Court dated 13.02.2024.
10.1 It is well settled proposition of law that the scope of the
Revisional Court is only to see the patent illegalities or
irregularities in the proceedings challenged before it. It can call
for examination of records only for satisfying itself on the said
grounds. In this context, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Page 11/19
-- 11 of 19 --
Court in case titled Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr.
(2012) 9 SCC 460 is relevant and the relevant paras of the same
are reproduced hereunder:
“12. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be
exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or
proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the
inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does
not specifically use the expression ‘prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice’, the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited
one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order
passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also
requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be
exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance
with the provisions of law, the decision is completely
erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon
the maxim quando lex liquid alicuiconcedit, conceder
videtur id quo res ipsa esse non protest, i.e., when the law
gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things
without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The
Section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice
and to ensure that the process of the Court is not permitted
to be abused.
13. It may be somewhat necessary to have a comparative
examination of the powers exercisable by the Court under
these two provisions. There may be some overlapping
between these two powers because both are aimed at
securing the ends of justice and both have an element of
discretion. But, at the same time, inherent power under
Section 482 of the Code being an extraordinary and
residuary power, it is inapplicable in regard to matters
which are specifically provided for under other provisions
of the Code. To put it simply, normally the court may not
invoke its power under Section 482 of the Code where a
party could have availed of the remedy available under
Section 397 of the Code itself. The inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code are of a wide magnitude and are
not as limited as the power under Section 397. Section 482
can be invoked where the order in question is neither an
interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2)
nor a final order in the strict sense. Reference in this regard
can be made to Raj Kapoor & Ors. v. State of Punjab &
Ors. [AIR 1980 SC 258 : (1980) 1 SCC 43]}. In this very
case, this Court has observed that inherent power under
Section 482 may not be exercised if the bar under Sections
Page 12/19
-- 12 of 19 --
397(2) and 397(3) applies, except in extraordinary
situations, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
10.2 Thus, this Court while hearing the petitions in hand as a
Revisional Court has to exercise its jurisdiction in a very limited
manner and cannot act as Appellate Court thereby re-appreciating
the allegations and view taken thereupon.
11. Before going into the merits of the allegations, the first
patent illegality challenged on behalf of the petitioners is the
unrebutted material not part of chargesheet being ignored by the
Ld. Trial Court by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Orissa V. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra)
case.
11.1 The impugned order itself reflects that the subsequent
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the said subject viz
Rukmini Narvekar (supra) too was filed before the Ld. Trial
Court. But, it appears that the same has not been discussed as to
how the said judgment was not applicable and the documents
procured under the RTI and filed by the revisionists/petitioners
before the Ld. Trial Court could not be looked into. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rukmini Narvekar (supra) case discussed the
very same aspect and also interpreted the judgment in State of
Orissa V. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) case and relevant paras
are reproduced as under:
22. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said as an
absolute proposition that under no circumstances can
the Court look into the material produced by the
defence at the time of framing of the charges, though
this should be done in very rare cases, i.e. where the
defence produces some material which convincingly
demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally
absurd or totally concocted. We agree with Shri Lalit
Page 13/19
-- 13 of 19 --
that in some very rare cases the Court is justified in
looking into the material produced by the defence at
the time of framing of the charges, if such material
convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution
version is totally absurd, preposterous or concocted.
23. However, in this case it cannot be said that the
evidence in the Civil Suit which was produced by the
defence before the trial court established convincingly
that the prosecution case is totally absurd or
preposterous. In our opinion this is a matter which has
to be looked into by the trial Court.”
11.2 Thus, it has been held that ordinarily the defence material
cannot be looked into by the Court while considering the framing
of charge, but in exceptional cases where the documents
produced by the accused demonstrate the prosecution version to
be absurd and preposterous can be looked into. Thus, a standard
has been set with respect to the defence material which can be
considered in a very rare and exceptional cases. The said defence
material should cross the hurdle of showing the prosecution
version to be absurd or preposterous.
12. The issue now to be seen as to whether the RTI
information in response to RTI application dated 18.01.2016 filed
on record on behalf of the defence crosses the said hurdle or not.
The information has been supplied to the applicant by informing
as under:
“Thinner and Reducer are industrial chemical products
which do not come under the Essential Commodities.”
12.1 The Trial Court Record (TCR) reflects that the Ld. Trial
Court conducted the inquiry with respect to the said information
and sought response from the prosecution. The comprehensive
report dated 30.06.2018 has been filed before the Ld. Trial Court
Page 14/19
-- 14 of 19 --
where the scope of said information has been clearly explained.
As per the report, it is stated that no doubt, thinner and reducer
are not covered under Solvent Order 2000 issued under the
Essential Commodities Act. But, these are the by-products
derived from Naphtha and the Solvents covered under Rule 3 of
Solvent Order 2000.
13. It is not the case of the prosecution that there is diversion
of thinner or reducer or organic solvents as seems to be argument
of the revisionists. But, rather the raw material procured by the
petitioners under the licence issued to them which has been
alleged to be diverted to fake firms. The said raw material is
admittedly covered under the Solvent Order 2000. It is the case
of the prosecution that petitioners/revisionists namely BSM
Petrochem Pvt Ltd. ( A-7 before the Ld. Trial Court ), Bharat
Enterprises Unit II (A-8 before the Ld. Trial Court) and Bharat
Enterprises Meerut (A-9 before the Ld. Trial Court ) procured the
licences under the under the Solvent Order 2000 from District
Supplier Officer (DSO), Meerut/Ghaziabad for procuring the said
controlled products i.e Pentane, SDP and Mixed Fuel Oil (MFO)
etc from Gas Authority India Ltd (GAIL) during the alleged
period from the year 2009-2010. These raw materials were used
and consumed by them by claiming to produce thinner, reducer
or organic solvents which are admittedly not controlled products.
Therefore, the petitioners/revisionists BSM Petrochem Pvt Ltd.
(A-7), Bharat Enterprises Unit II (A-8) and Bharat Enterprises
Meerut (A-9) having obtained the licences under Solvent Order
2000 for procuring the solvent, pentane etc. were duty-bound to
Page 15/19
-- 15 of 19 --
file End Use Certificate under Rule 3 (4) with respect to the said
procured controlled material.
13.1 The said compliance by submission of End Use Certificate
is alleged to be forged one with respect to certain entities i.e
Mahalaxmi Trading Company and M/s Shivam Electricalal and
Hardware Store. The proprietors of the said companies have
been cited as prosecution witnesses who have denied having any
business of trading regarding procuring thinner, reducer etc with
BSM Petrochem Pvt Ltd. ( A-7). Thus, at this stage, there was no
material available with the Ld. Trial Court discarding the said
allegations levelled regarding submission of false End Use
Certificate.
14. In the said backdrop, the RTI information even if
considered to be entirely correct does not in any manner helps the
case of the petitioners/revisionists. It has already been observed
that the case of the prosecution is not with respect to the
diversion of thinner, reducer or organic solvents but rather the
diversion of controlled products which were procured by the
revisionists/petitioners from GAIL under the licence. Under the
guise of production and sale of Thinner/Reducer, the said raw
material was diverted for illegal use.
15. The argument advanced on behalf of the
revisionists/petitioners regarding non-applicability of provisions
under Essential Commodities Act r/w Rule 3 of Solvent Order
2000 is on the premise that they had filed the End Use
Certificate with the concerned District Supply Office. The said
Page 16/19
-- 16 of 19 --
argument on the face of it is in contradiction to the foremost
argument of petitioners/revisionists that the sale of thinner,
reducer or organic solvent is not covered under the Solvent
Order 2000. If indeed, the revisionists/petitioners were only
selling or using the non-controlled products, then what prompted
them for filing the quarterly returns with respect to the said non-
controlled products with DSO, Meerut or Ghaziabad.
16. The prosecution has filed on record quarterly and monthly
reports with respect to the licence holders i.e BSM Petrochem
Pvt Ltd. ( A-7), Bharat Enterprises Unit II, Ghaziabad, U.P (A-8)
and Bharat Enterprises Meerut (A-9). They were regularly
submitting the reports for the relevant year 2009-2010 with
respect to the receipt of controlled raw material and its
consumption i.e Pentane, SDP and Mixed Fuel Oil (MFO) etc.
Simultaneously, they also submitted returns of goods
manufactured and sold during the same relevant period i.e
Industrial Solvent, thinner, reducer etc. Thus, the documents filed
by the said accused persons in compliance of the licence
conditions itself reflects that they were aware about the terms and
conditions of the licence and their raw material used for
production being covered under the Solvent Order 2000.
17. Now, coming to the merits of the allegations. Though the
same are not challenged herein, but the record of Ld. Trial Court
itself reflects that there was
prima facie material available before
the Ld. Trial Court for proceeding to frame the charges under the
Essential Commodities Act. The allegations are that BSM
Petrochem Pvt Ltd. ( A-7), Bharat Enterprises Unit II, Ghaziabad,
Page 17/19
-- 17 of 19 --
U.P (A-8) and Bharat Enterprises Meerut (A-9) got issued the
licences under the Solvent Order 2000 from DSO, Meerut and
DSO, Ghaziabad respectively. It has further been alleged that in
compliance of the conditions of the said licence under Rule 3(4)
of the Solvent Order 2000, all the said three firms submitted
returns with the concerned DSO for the relevant period 2009-
2010. The investigation revealed that the transaction of the said
two licence holders with M/s Shivam Electrical & Hardware
Store, Azad Pur, Delhi and M/s Mahalaxmi Trading Company,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi were found to be only paper transactions.
These two firms came into existence during the above-said
period only. The manner in which they were incorporated and
used, as per the allegations in the present fraud, for diversion of
controlled products has been explained by PW-7 Shyam Sunder
Vansal, PW-9 Neeraj Kumar Gupta and PW-21 Shiv Dutt. Their
statements at this stage, has to be taken at its face value which
shows the said two firms to be only paper firms, not doing any
business as alleged. The transfer of money in their accounts too
is stated to be fraudulent as deposed by PW-6 Mushraff Hussain
@ Guddu. Thus, the allegations coupled with the documents as
well as versions of the prosecution witnesses as referred above
prima facie disclose sufficient material before the Ld. Trial Court
for proceedings against the revisionists/petitioners for the offence
r/w Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act regarding violation
of Rule 3 (4) of the Solvent Order 2000.
18. In view of the above observations, I am of the considered
view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court which calls for
Page 18/19
-- 18 of 19 --
any interference. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby
upheld. Consequently, the revision petitions filed by the
revisionists/petitioners are dismissed being devoid of merits.
Nothing stated herein-above shall tantamount to expression
of opinion to the merits of the case.
TCR be sent back with a copy of this order.
Announced in the open Court (GAGANDEEP SINGH)
on 12.07.2024 Special Judge, PC Act, CBI-04
Rouse Avenue District Courts,
New Delhi
Page 19/19
-- 19 of 19 --