LI Network
Published on: November 28, 2023 at 00:13 IST
The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, dismissed a chargesheet in a case alleging the fraudulent sale of an adulterated substance instead of petrol or diesel, citing the lack of an expert opinion regarding the seized liquid’s nature.
The Court emphasized the inadequacy of the prosecution’s case due to the absence of supporting expert analysis.
The court highlighted the absence of an expert’s report as pivotal to the case’s foundation. It remarked that the charge sheet was built upon the assumption that the seized liquid resembled and smelled like petrol or diesel.
However, the prosecution failed to present an expert’s evaluation detailing the precise nature of the liquid, rendering the offense unsubstantiated.
In a stern observation, the Court criticized the prosecution’s negligence, noting the failure to procure the crucial report despite a court notice over seven months. The Court highlighted the impracticality of producing such a report after an extensive delay, indicating a potential misuse of the legal process.
The case involved an appeal against an MP High Court ruling that dismissed the appellant’s plea to quash an FIR under sections 420 (cheating), 120-B, and sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The incident stemmed from allegations in October 2021, asserting that a hydrocarbon mixture, represented as petrol or diesel, was found in a seized tanker handled by the appellants. The charge sheet was filed in February 2022.
The Court noted the absence of an expert’s report, even to date, regarding the liquid found in the seized tanker, highlighting the prosecution’s failure to provide essential evidence despite the substantial time lapse.
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and overturned the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the insufficiency of evidence due to the absence of expert opinion, thereby dismissing the chargesheet.
