High CourtsSingle Bench(2017) 04 MP CK 0011

Ku. Maneesha Agrawal vs State of M. P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 10 April 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S. Ahluwalia
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
837 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 656 words
1.

This is an application under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.376/2011 before the Court of JMFC, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior.

2.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that on 08.07.2009 at about 9:30 PM, an inspection was carried out by Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tahsildar, Bhitarwar along with their staff at Man Automobile Petrol Pump and it was found that kerosene oil which is meant for public distribution was being unloaded in the underground diesel/petrol tank from tanker No.15-D- 0432. After noticing the inspection team, the owner of the petrol pump as well as one Munna Lal Agrawal ran away from the spot. On the spot, one Marshal Jeep bearing registration No.MP07-HA-2716 was also found parked near the tanker in which certain chemicals were found loaded. According to the prosecution, these chemicals are used for

adulterating diesel/petrol with the kerosene oil. It was found that the applicant is the owner of the said Marshal Jeep. The police after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against the applicant and other accused person.

3.

It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that she has been made as an accused merely on the ground that she is the owner of the Marshal Jeep which was found parked in the petrol pump carrying chemicals. According to the prosecution, after noticing the inspection team, one Munna Lal Agrawal had also ran away from the spot, who is the father of the applicant. Thus, it is contended by the counsel for the applicant that she was not aware of the fact that her father would use her jeep for transporting the chemicals which are used for mixing diesel/petrol with the kerosene oil. As her father Munna Lal Agrawal was also present on the spot when the adulteration of the diesel/petrol was going on, therefore, it was submitted that she is innocent and had bonafidely given her jeep to Munna Lal Agrawal.

4.

Per contra, it is submitted by the State counsel that whether the applicant had bonafidely given her jeep or not is a highly disputed question of fact which is required to be proved by the applicant in the trial and since the jeep owned by her was found carrying chemicals which are used for adulterating diesel/petrol with the kerosene oil, it is submitted that prima-facie there is sufficient material against the applicant for prosecuting under Section 3 / 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties, It is the case of the prosecution that when the inspection team carried out the inspection of Man Automobile Petrol Pump, one tanker bearing registration No.MP-15-D-0432 was found parked in the premises of the petrol pump and the kerosene oil was being unloaded in the underground tank through one inlet pipe. On the spot itself one Marshal Jeep bearing registration No.MP-07-HA-2716 was also seized and certain chemicals of black and yellow colour which are used for adulterating the petrol/diesel with the kerosene oil were also found.

6.

Whether the applicant had bonafidely handed over her jeep to her father Munna Lal Agrawal or she was a party to the conspiracy, are some aspect of the matter, which are highly disputed in nature and it is for the applicant to prove her innocence after leading cogent and reliable evidence. Once, it is found that the vehicle belonging to the applicant was carrying certain chemicals which are used for adulterating the petrol/diesel, then prima-facie, it would mean that the said chemicals were being transported with her consent.

7.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC, this Court cannot adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact, which are otherwise required to be proved by the applicant in the trial by leading cogent and reliable evidence.

8.

Accordingly, this application fails and is hereby dismissed.