Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

YASHPAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Yashpal Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 1167 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2121 (8 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 9

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1167 of 2007

Yashpal Singh ................................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others..................................................Respondents

**********

Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.

Hon'ble R.N. Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.

Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings in case crime No. 236 of 2006, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, police station Madhogarh, district Jalaun and for not adopting coercive measures against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.

The allegations in the FIR dated 15.11.2006 lodged by Shri K.K. Mishra, District Supply Inspector were that on 15.11.2006 at about 2.15 A.M. a tanker No. U.P. 80- AT 9358 was found parked at the M/s Trinetra filling station of which the petitioner is the proprietor and blue coloured oil (which appeared to be kerosene oil) was being taken out from the tanker and being put in the tank of the filling station. Neither the tanker driver Mangaliya nor the petitioner or his employees could produce any valid document for delivery of the said oil. Four chambers of the tanker contained the blue liquid oil. As part of the liquid in the tanker has already been emptied out into the tank of the petitioner's filling station, hence samples of the diesel and petrol were also taken, which have been sealed and duplicate bottles of the sample taken have also been given to the petitioner's employees present at that time. Some other irregularities are also alleged. In this manner the petitioners and other co-accused are said to have committed offiences under various control orders under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two test reports dated 17.11.2006, which he has annexed did not disclose such adulteration.

We do not know how many reports were taken and reliability of the said reports and in any case the same are matters for defence to be raised at the appropriate stage. Moreover, prima facie, there is  no reasonable explanation for unloading of the kerosene oil at the petitioner's filling station if the same was not for the purpose of adulterating the petrol and diesel kept there and the  learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to produce any licence under the Kerosene Control Order entitling him to unload kerosene in his filling station.

It was further argued that in the case of Padam Singh Chauhan, the tanker owner, the arrest was stayed by an order of the concurrent Division Bench. The role of tanker owner could have been different from the petitioner, who had absolutely no justification for receiving kerosene oil in his premises nor does the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 29.1.2007 releasing the tanker in favour of the co-accused Padam Singh on security, confer any benefit to the petitioner. Adulteration of kerosene oil with diesel, petrol and mobil-oil is now becoming a cancer in our society and is causing immense damage to a large number of vehicles and harming the interests of innocent owners who go to filling stationd for filling their vehicles and staying investigation or granting stays of arrest in such matters can be extremely detrimental to society.

In this view of the matter, we find no force in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Dated: 8.2.2007

Ishrat


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.