New Delhi [India], March 21 (ANI): A Rouse Avenue court has recently discharged a trader in a case of essential commodities after noting that the RTI reply revealed that those chemicals (reducer and Thinner) were not included in essential commodities.
This case is 15 years old and registered with the CBI. The CBI had filed a Charge sheet in 2011.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Jyoti Maheshwari discharged Manish Kumar Aggarwal and Reliable Industries.
“Once the above RTI reply was furnished on behalf of the accused, it was incumbent on the prosecution to show otherwise, but this exercise was not carried out by the prosecution, for reasons best known to it,” the court said in its March 11 order.
The allegations were that M/s Reliable Industries had shown the sale of reducer and thinner to M/s Rainbow Petrochemicals, Rohtak, Haryana, in its records, without actually supplying any such material to the said firm.
It was also alleged that both the above-mentioned firms were diverting the materials for
adulteration of petroleum products.
After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against Manish Kumar Aggarwal, Dinesh Gupta, Reliable Industries, and Rainbow Petrochemicals on August 29, 2011. alleging commission of offences under Section 120-B IPC and Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Proceedings against Dinesh Gupta and Rainbow Petrochemicals were abetted by the court.
During the course of the investigation, it transpired that Reliable Industries had shown the sale of a reducer to Rainbow Petrochemicals and submitted a monthly report of sales/purchases of items from April 2009 to March 2010, in the office of the District Supply Officer, Bulandshahar. The said returns were signed by the accused Manish Kumar Aggarwal and showed that Rs. 10.63 crores was received by Reliable Industries from Rainbow Petrochemicals.
Advocate K K Sharma, counsel for Manish Kumar Aggarwal and Reliable Industries, submitted that an RTI was filed, seeking information as to “Whether Thinner and Reducer come under the Essential Commodities Act” and in reply to the same, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has categorically replied through a reply of 01.02.2016 with the list of. essential commodities and also clarified that “Thinner and Reducer are industrial chemical products, which do not come under Essential Commodities”.
It was also submitted that since thinner and reducer do not come within the purview of the EC Act, 1955, no offence is made out in the present case.
While discharging the accused persons, the court said, “Perhaps, the biggest lacuna in the case of prosecution is that till date, no notification or order of the Competent Authority has been furnished, which shows that Thinner and Reducer come within the purview of Essential Commodities”.
“Due to failure on the part of prosecution to produce such a foundational document, the very basis of alleging the commission of offences under EC Act, 1955, falls to the ground,” it added.
The court further said that while the prosecution remained silent, the defence had actively disproved the charges. “Thus, the foundational fact of thinner and reducer being ‘Essential Commodities’ has not been shown by the prosecution, but the contrary has been shown by the accused,” the court said, adding that the case was “rife with multiple inconsistencies”.
“Even without a trial, the accused persons have suffered immensely on account of the legal proceedings in the present case, for approximately 15 long years,” ACJM Maheshwari held. (ANI)