Suraj Singh Rawat S/O Ganpat Singh vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court dismissed the petition. It was an admitted position that the petitioner did not possess a license to conduct the retail business of biodiesel. The petitioner's GST certificate indicated a license to conduct business in chemicals and fertilizers. During the arguments, the petitioner's counsel could not satisfy the Court that an individual holding a license for chemicals and fertilizers could legally sell biodiesel at retail. Consequently, the Court opined that the proceedings initiated by the police authority against the petitioner appeared to be bona fide. Therefore, the petition was found to be devoid of merit and liable for dismissal. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Suraj Singh Rawat, proprietor of M/s Balaji Chemicals and Fertilizers, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR registered against him at Police Station Mangaliyavas, District Ajmer. The FIR alleged offences under the Essential Commodities Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and criminal conspiracy. The petitioner argued that his business of manufacturing Biodiesel, biodiesel oil, and base oil in Ajmer, for which he held a GST registration, was conducted in accordance with state government orders. He contended that biodiesel is not an explosive and is not governed by the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and that storage up to 30,000 liters is permissible. He also claimed that criminal proceedings should not be initiated without sampling the biodiesel, as per state government directions. The prosecution opposed the petition, asserting that the police investigation found offences made out under the relevant Acts and that the search operation was lawful.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner for offences under the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 420, 285, 379, 411, and 120B IPC is liable to be quashed, particularly concerning the petitioner's business of manufacturing and selling Biodiesel. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the FIR was false and frivolous. He argued that his business of manufacturing Biodiesel and base oil was legitimate, supported by a GST registration and state government orders dated July 13, 2021, which clarified that biodiesel is not an explosive and its storage up to 30,000 liters is permissible. He asserted that biodiesel is not a petroleum product and therefore, no offence under the Essential Commodities Act is made out. Furthermore, he claimed that as per state government directions, no criminal proceedings or FIR should be registered against a licensed Retail Seller of Biodiesel without sampling. He relied on judgments in State of Haryana & ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors., Ms Kotyark Industries Pvt. Ltd. anr. vs. State of Raj., and M/s Royal Energy Ltd. vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. & ors. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the police proceedings were conducted as per law and that the investigation revealed offences under the Essential Commodities Act and IPC. He relied on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Vishnu Kumar vs. State of UP and ors.