Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Praveen Garg on 6 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS MAHIMA RAI SINGH,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROUSE
AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CBI No. 337/2019
RC No. 072/2010/E-0004
CBI vs Praveen Garg & Ors.
U/s : Section 3 & 7 Essential Commodities Act r/w 120-B IPC
BRANCH : CBI, EOU-III, New Delhi
Date of Institution : 28.06.2011
Date on which case was
reserved for Judgment : 27.09.2023
Date of Judgment : 06.10.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Case No. : 337/2019
2. Date of the Commission : 1992 -1993
of offence
3. Name of the accused persons : 1. Praveen Garg, S/o
Sh. Ram Lal Garg,
R/o 3/26, East Punjabi
Bagh, New Delhi-26.
2. Smt. Sushila Rani, W/o
Sh. Azad Singh, R/o NS-
23, Mianwali Nagar,
Pashchim Vihar, New
Delhi-87. (discharged vide
order dated 05.06.2013 by
the Ld. Revisional Court)
3. Mukesh Goel, S/o Lt.
Sh. Bhajan Lal Goel, R/o
AG-215, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi-88.
4.Name of the complainant : Source Information
5.Offence complained of : U/s 3 and 7 of Essential
Commodities Act 1955 r/w
Section 120-B IPC.
6.Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as alleged in the
Case No. 337/19 DL-00531
CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 1 of 45
charge-sheet are that "a surprise team consisting of
officers/officials of CBI along with officers of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., upon receipt of reliable information, conducted a surprise check on 12.05.2010 at premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. at Site No. 1, Block 8, Geeta Colony, Delhi. The joint surprise check team in presence of independent witness found that above premises is being used for the storage of Petroleum Products and other chemicals used for adulteration of petroleum products. The following petroleum products/ items were found in the aforesaid premises:-
1. Kerosene Oil Approx. 5,000 Ltrs.
2. Light Diesel Oil (LD) 20,000Ltrs.
3. CBS Haldia 30,000 Ltrs.
4. High Speed Diesel (HSD) 5,000 Ltrs.
5. Kerosene Bleached 1,500 Ltrs.
6. Hydrogen Peroxide 50 Ltrs.
7. Unknown Chemical 50 Ltrs.
8. Bleaching Powder 2 Bags
9. Barrels containing Diesel 8 Nos.
10.Barrels containing Black Oil 22 Nos.
11.Barrels containing Kerosene 2 Nos.
12.Empty barrels 21 Nos.
2. Samples of the above products were collected by Sh. K. G. Ghatwai, Sr. Manager (Quality Control Cell) North, BPCL, Sector-5, Noida. M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. was having license of BPCL for procurement of Kerosene Oil for onward supply to Ration Depot Holders under the PDS. As per CBI, sample test report dated 20.05.2010, the samples of products seized during joint surprise check on 12.05.2010, failed to meet the standard Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 2 of 45 specification of product. It was alleged that at the premises of M/s Lakra Trading Oil Co. adulteration of petroleum product was being carried out, whereas M/s Lakra Trading Oil Co. was authorized agent of BPCL for collecting kerosene oil for onward supplies for KODs (Kerosene Oil Depot) and as per the norms/practice no agent of BPCL including M/s Lakra Trading Oil Co. was supposed to store/decant kerosene oil at any place before giving delivery to KODs. There was no permission for parallel marketing of kerosene oil by M/s Lakra Trading Oil Co. except through KODs. It is further alleged that blue coloured kerosene oil was first treated hydrogen peroxide and one black chemical and when colour of the blue kerosene oil turned into light brown, it further treated with bleaching power to make it colorless kerosene oil for the purpose of adulteration. It is alleged that distributorship was allotted in the name of accused Smt. Sushila Rani under the dealership agreement dated 25.01.90 between M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and accused Smt. Sushila Rani being proprietor of M/s Lakra Trading Oil Co. and this dealership was for SKO (Superior Kerosene Oil) which is subsidies product and for light diesel oil for supplies to different KODs and during 01.01.10 to 15.05.10 M/s Lakra Trading Oil Co. was having 18 KODs attached to it. The business affair of said firm was handed over by accused no.2 Smt. Sushila Rani to accused no.1 Praveen Garg and as desired by accused no.1 Praveen Garg, a General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of accused no.3 Mukesh Goyal. The clause-22 of the Dealership Agreement dated 25.01.1990, a dealer cannot without the consent in writing can assign or transfer in any manner the contract to any other person and as per clause-15, dealer was Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 3 of 45 made responsible for passing of or any contravention of law. Besides this as per the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005 issued by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, under para-1.5 (III) of those guidelines no dealer is supposed to buy, sell or exchange any petroleum product with any other dealer or anybody other than principal oil company. Para 6.1.7 deals with unauthorized purchase/sell/exchange of MS HSD. It is also alleged that many purchasers were in dealing with accused no.3 Mukesh Goyal and accused no.1 Praveen Garg for carrying out the supply of furnace oil or other petroleum product from the premises of M/s Lakra Trading Oil Co. as such there was a violation of "Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Regulation of Supply (Distribution and Prevention of Malpractice) Order 2005"
and Section 3 r/w Section 4 of "Kerosene (Restriction and Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order 1993" and "Delhi Kerosene Oil (Export and Prize) Control Order 1962" and thereby they committed the offence U/s 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act r/w Section 120-B IPC.
COGNIZANCE & SUMMONING:-
3. Vide the order dated 28.06.2011 cognizance for the offences U/s 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act r/w Section 120-B IPC were taken and accused persons including accused no.2 Smt. Sushila Rani were summoned for answering to the allegations in the charge-sheet.
CHARGE:-
4. In pursuance to the order on charge dated 07.01.2013, formal charge for the offences U/s 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act r/w Section 120-B IPC was framed by the Ld. Predecessor Court against the accused persons Praveen Garg, Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 4 of 45 Mukesh Goyal and Smt. Sushila Rani on 11.01.2013.
5. Vide order dated 05.06.2013 of the Ld. Revisional Court, Smt. Sushila Rani was discharged from the present case.
THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:-
6. In order to substantiate its allegations against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 31 witnesses in total. The relevant part of the testimonies of each of the witnesses is reproduced as under:-
(i) PW-1 is Sh. K.G. Ghatwai, deposed before the court that presently he was working as a Chief Manager, HSSC Retail Northern Region in BPCL and that he joined the CBI team on 12.05.2010 for Joint Inspection headed by Bhupender Kumar, SP, CBI at the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. at site no. 1, Block-8, Geeta Colony, Delhi. It is also deposed that on reaching the premises they found many products stored underground in the storage tanks and found bleaching powder stored in gunny bags, high speed diesel along with white kerosene. Samples were taken of all the products found and the same were sealed and label was put on sample boxes duly signed by inspecting officers. On enquiry it was found that the accused Praveen Garg was running the affairs of the company. It was found out from the company officials that M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. was authorized to deal in 4 products that is furnace oil, light diesel oil, mineral turpentine oil and blue died PDS kerosene oil but, other products were found stored unauthorizedly.
Joint Surprise check memo dated 12.05.2010 was exhibited as Ex. PW. 1/1 and sample test written on M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. at site no. 1, Block-8, Geeta Colony, Delhi, which was sent to BPCL quality control laboratory Brijwasan, Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 5 of 45 New Delhi was exhibited as PW1/2. PW1 identified the 7 sealed sample and his signature on the slip of the 7 sealed samples at point A, the same were exhibited as Ex. P1 to Ex. P7. He also identified his signature on Ex.PW-1/1 at Point A. PW 1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsels of accused persons wherein, he stated that no written request was sent to CBI for calling him to their office on 12.05.2010 and he did not remember how many samples were taken but for each product they took 3 samples. Also, that he did not check the records of the company to know the owner of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. Further that, he did not know if Praveen Garg was in any manner connected with M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and that he did not state that Praveen Garg was the owner of the company M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co..
(ii) PW-2 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, worked in the Bank of India and now retired, deposed that on the instructions of his present AGM, he went to the CBI office on 12.05.2010 in the morning at 05:30 AM and then went with the CBI team at M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. at site no. 1, Block-8, Geeta Colony, Delhi and that the team comprised of 3 CBI officials, one officer from BPCL and he. They reached the premises at 07:30 AM and found 4 underground storage tanks and one syntax tank containing diesel. As per the said witness there were 2-3 more petroleum products like Hydrogen Peroxide, Bleaching Powder and one more product whose name he did not know. Samples of all the products were taken in his presence and that enquiry was done qua the owner of the said premises and they were informed that the premises belong to M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and proprietor of the same was one Sh. Praveen Garg. Further that, CBI team Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 6 of 45 tried to contact Mr. Praveen Garg that is accused no. 1 to join the search team but he declined. He identified his signature on exhibit PW 1/1 at point B and also identified his signature on the slip of the 7 sealed samples that Ex. P1 to Ex. P2 at point B on each sample.
The said witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and he stated that he was given verbal directions by the AGM to visit CBI office and there was no written document to show his visit to the CBI office. Also that, his statement was not recorded by CBI office on the date of his visit and was recorded later on, however, he failed to remember the date. He further stated that CBI recorded the statement of staff officers present at the spot and statement of other persons but he failed to remember if the said persons were asked to sign their statements. He could not remember whether he was asked to sign his statement. He did not know if M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. was an agency of BPCL or that BPCL officials present at the spot tried to find the details of the agency. He also failed to remember if any document was found regarding the said agency or its ownership at the spot. He also failed to remember if any document was found at the spot to show that Praveen Garg was the proprietorship of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co.. He further deposed that no sample testing was done at the spot by anyone in his presence and nobody informed him about the products in which the said agency was working.
(iii) PW-3 Sh. Suraj deposed that in the year 2010 he worked with the oil company namely M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and that the owner of the company was Sh. Mukesh Goyal. As per the witness he worked in the company for 12 days only and during Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 7 of 45 that time white fuel used to be put in by tankers and besides this LDO also. He used to clean these tankers with white powder and the tankers used to contain two types of oil i.e. white oil and blue-green oil and that they used to fill decanted oil as per their requirements.
He was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons wherein he stated that he did not know whether Ms. Sushila Devi was the owner of M/s Lakra Oil Trading or who was the owner of the company. He admitted to the suggestion that it was correct that as per requirement, the required oil, as it is, was used to be filled in chambers.
(iv) PW-4 is B.M. Pandit DSP, CBI who stated that during 2010 he was posted in CBI EOW-I N Delhi and on 12.05.2010 he was deputed to carry out surprise check at the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. at site no. 1, Block-8, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Also that, Sh. K.G. Ghatwai (PW1) was also associated with him along with independent witness Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal i.e. PW2 and S.C. Bhalla i.e. PW27 Inspector CBI and other team members. Sh. Virender Kumar, Giriraj and Suraj were found in the premises. On enquiring one person namely, Sh. Virender Kumar, who was found in the premises, they found that the owner of the premises was Sh. Praveen Garg. As per the witness, mobile number of Sh. Praveen Garg was provided by Sh. Virender and the witness tried to contact him but there was no response. On taking a round of the premises, 4 underground steel tanks were found and Sh. K.G. Ghawai i.e. PW1 inspected the material available in the tanks. On inquiry Virender Kumar and Giriraj informed that in one tank there was LDO (Light Diesel Oil) and in the second tank it was kerosene, in third tank it Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 8 of 45 was high speed diesel and fourth tank it was CBS Haldia Oil. Details of the tanks were given in surprise check memo prepared by them. As per PW4, two centrifugal pumps to handle the material in tanks and an inspection platform with ladder were also available in the premises. A syntax tank of about 3000 liters capacity with treated kerosene, a plastic can with Hydrogen Peroxide around 50 liters capacity and another plastic can with unknown chemical was also found available at the premises. Bleaching powder in a paper bag was also available. He further deposed that PW1 inspected the petroleum products and accordingly samples of all the petroleum products found, chemical and bleaching powder were taken by PW1 and all the samples were sealed and plastic seals with random numbers were put on samples of petroleum products and chemicals and bleaching powder was sealed in a paper envelope in 3 sets. All the samples were signed by the team members including PW1 and PW2 an independent witness. A set of sample was handed over to PW 1, one set was given to Sh. Virender and Sh. Giriraj employee of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and one set of sample was taken into possession by the CBI.
Videography of the premises was done by the technical team of CBI and video cassette was sealed then and there. Surprise check memo was prepared at the spot in the presence of PW1, PW2, Sh. S.C Bhalla, Inspector, CBI, Virender Kumar and Giriraj and was signed by all of them. A copy was given to Virender Kumar and Giriraj and the proceedings of surprise check was concluded at 04:30 PM. He identified his signature at Point C on Ex.PW-1/1 and on the slip of sealed samples i.e. Ex. P1 to P7 at point C. The sample of bleaching powder collected at Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 9 of 45 M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. on 12.05.2010, found the bleaching powder bag was also shown to this witness wherein he identified his signature at point A and the same was exhibited as Ex. P8. Video cassette of the recording at the time of joint surprise check was exhibited Ex. P9 which bears his signature at Point A on the clinical plastic tape. The video cassette Ex. P9 was played in the court on 15.01.2016 and the witness identified the video as the same as videographed on the premises at the spot.
The witness also deposed that search list was prepared in his presence on 15.05.2010, search was conducted at the premises no. WZ14D, Manohar Park, Rohtak Road, Delhi and search list was exhibited as Ex. PW4/A bearing his signatures at point A on both the sides.
PW-4 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons wherein he stated that he has not verified the name of the owner of the company on which the raid was to be conducted. No documentary evidence was found at the premises to show that Praveen Garg and Mukesh Goyal were the owner of the said company and that they were not present at the time when premises was raided. Also, that processing was not going on at that time when the raid was conducted and the information regarding the processing were given by the employees present at the premises. Further that they have not asked the employees to show them practically what was being done at the premises. The witness admitted that he has no knowledge of petroleum products and how many petroleum products were covered under the EC Act when they had conducted the raid. Also, that he was not aware about the sampling process and the material used for the same. The photographer did not accompany them from the office Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 10 of 45 and that the videographer was called at around 10:00/11:00 AM. The witness was not aware as to when and where the IO has sent the samples for chemical analysis. Also, that nobody from the nearby houses was called to join the raiding team and till the time they remained at spot, no public person visited the spot.
(v) PW-5 Ashok Kumar Navet, Assistant Registrar in the office of Registrar Cooperative Society exhibited document Ex. PW-5/1 i.e. letter dated 10.09.2010 of Assistant Commissioner (Fuel), Sh. Manoj Kumar Das addressed to DSP, CBI EOU-III and identified the signature of Sh. Manoj Kumar Das at point A. He also exhibited certified copy of kerosene license no. 3614/19 dated 20.02.1999 renewed upto 19.02.2011 and identified the signature on the attested copy of Sh. Udaiveer Singh at Point A. He further exhibited list of KOD (Kerosene Oil Depot) attached with the kerosene oil agents M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. relevant to the period 01.01.2010 to 17.05.2010 as Ex. PW-5/3 which bears his signature at Point A. Challan issued to M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. to lift kerosene oil from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for further distribution to the KODs as per quantities mentioned in the column "quantity" consisting of 54 pages as Ex. PW-5/4 bearing his signature on all pages at point A. Production cum seizure memo seized by Sh. S.N. Khan, DSP, CBI, EOU-III was exhibited by the said witness as Ex. PW-5/5 bearing his signature at Point A. PW-5 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for all the accused. It was stated that as per record i.e. KOD License Ex. PW-5/2, the name of the licensing is Sushila Devi of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. The witness admitted that proper compliance report has been submitted by M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. on the Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 11 of 45 challans Ex. PW-5/4 except challans cancelled. He had no idea whether any complaints of the KOD's, who were issued kerosene oil and that there was no such complaint on judicial record.
(vi) PW-6 Sh. K.R. Mehndiratta who retired from the post of Assistant Director, Consumer Affair cum Assistant Commissioner, Food Fuel and Supply Department in 2010 deposed about the procedure adopted for the distribution/sale of kerosene oil, appointment of agents and KODs. He stated that LDO(Light Deisel Oil) prior to August 2010 was also a controlled item but later on it was decontrolled and the sale of LDO was free of any control by the food and supply department.
PW-6 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for all the accused. The witness during cross-examination stated that the agent was allowed to lift the allotted quota of kerosene oil only after he produced the acknowledgement from the kerosene oil depots for whom the quota was released earlier. He was not aware of the exact date when LDO was decontrolled or the notification dated 19.11.2009 by which LDO was deleted from the list. During cross-examination the copy of the kerosene (restriction on use and fixation of ceiling price), order 1993 was exhibited as Ex. PW-6/DX1.
(vii) PW-7 Sh. Tek Chand Badhan who was earlier working in M/s Jay See Steels Pvt Ltd. exhibited document production cum seizure memo dated 12.04.2011 as Ex. PW-7/A and identified the signature of Sh. Anil Sinha the then Assistant Manager of M/s Jay See Steels Pvt. Ltd. He also exhibited original forwarding letter dated 12.04.2011 addressed to Sh. S.N. Khan, Deputy SP, CBI as Ex.PW-7/2 and identified the signature of Sh. Anil Sinha. Detailed Tax Invoices no. 01/035 dated 16.09.2009, invoice no.
Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 12 of 45 11/517 dated 13.11.2009, invoice no. 14/658 dated 13.01.2010, invoice no. 15/747 dated 12.03.2010 and invoice no. 01/024 dated 15.04.2010 were exhibited as Ex. PW-7/3 (Colly) by PW7.
PW-7 also exhibited Form Vat D-3 dated 16.09.2009 was exhibited as Ex. PW-7/4, form 38-A i.e. road permit for purchase of goods was exhibited as PW-7/5 (Colly), production cum seizure memo relating to ledger account of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. as Ex. PW-7/6 and ledger accounts of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. as Ex. PW-7/7 and Ex. PW-7/8.
Ld. Counsel for both the accused did not examine the said witness despite opportunity given.
(viii) PW-8 Sanjay Adlakha working as Manager Accounts in M/s Kiran Udyog Pvt. Ltd. exhibited production cum seizure memo dated 14.04.2011 as Ex. PW-8/1, covering letter dated 12.04.2011 bearing the signature of the Director Kiran Udyog Pvt Ltd. exhibited as Ex.PW-8/2, invoices no.01/022 dated 07.04.2009, invoice no. 02/065 dated 24.04.2009, 03/138 dated 20.05.2009, 05/216 dated 15.06.2009, 063/299 dated 06.07.2009, 08/360 dated 23.07.2009, 12/578 dated 25.11.2009, 13/604 dated 11.12.2009, 13/619 dated 23.12.2009, 15/707 dated 27.02.2010, 01.030 dated 14.04.2009, 05/231 dated 16.06.2009, 08/393 dated 07.08.2009 and 10/463 dated 25.09.2009 as Ex. PW-8/3.
PW-8 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for both the accused. He was not aware as to who was the owner of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co..
(ix) PW-9 Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, Marketing Assistance, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), stated that he along with Deepak Trivedi (PW13) used to inspect the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co., Delhi. He exhibited inspection report Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 13 of 45 dated 28.08.2009, i.e. Ex. PW 9/1, report dated 02.03.2010 along with monthly report along with copy of license under Delhi kerosene Oil Export as well as Price Control Order 1962 and explosive license as Ex. PW 9/2 (Colly), report dated 30.04.2010 along with monthly report as well as copy of license under Delhi kerosene Oil Export and Price Control Order 1962 and explosive license as Ex.PW-9/3 (Colly).
He was duly cross-examined by the ld. Counsels for both the accused. He stated that they always used to have interaction with a licensee i.e. M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. proprietor Sushila Devi and that Sushila Devi was responsible for running of the license granted to her by BPCL.
(x) PW-10 Sh. Pulkit Mathur, Chief Manager (Quality Control Cell), BPCL, Noida deposed that he was working as Senior Manager (Co-ordination) Delhi Retail Territory in the year 2010. He exhibited the certified copy of DDA Allotment No.FS(20)/87/MP/DDA dated 12.02.1988 which was for distributorship to Smt. Sushila Rani as Ex.PW-10/A. He identified his seal on both the pages at Point A. He also exhibited the dealership agreement dated 25.01.1990 verified and certified by him as Ex.PW-10/B bearing his signature at Point A. As per the witness, the agreement was stated to be between BPCL and Smt. Sushila Rani, proprietor of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and the same was for Kerosene and Light Diesel oil. Letter dated 10.08.2010 through which he handed over the records pertaining to supply of the BPCL products to M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. during the year 2010 i.e. invoice documents in original of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. for the period January 2010 to May 2010 were exhibited as Ex.PW-10/C and Ex.PW-10/D (Colly) Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 14 of 45 respectively.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for both the accused. During cross-examination he stated that as per clause-22 of Ex.PW-10/B (D-16) the dealer cannot transfer/assign the license/agreement without the consent of the company in writing and that Sushila Devi was responsible for running of the license granted to her by BPCL.
(xi) PW-11 Sh. Gulshan Budhiraja, stated that he worked with M/s Shivam Engineers and Fabricators situated at South side of GT Road, Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, U.P during the year 2006 to 2014 and the same was a galvanizing unit where coating of Zinc on Iron structures are done. He identified his signature on seizure memo dated 14.04.2011 of documents and the same was Ex.PW-11/A. The invoice no. 06/268 dated 27.06.2009, invoice no. 10/468 dated 10.10.2009 and invoice no. 02/088 dated 01.05.2010 handed over by him to the IO were exhibited by the said witness as Ex.PW-11/B, Ex.PW-11/C and Ex.PW-11/D respectively. The lorry receipts annexed with the same showing purchase of furnance oil from M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. by M/s Shivam Engineers and Fabricators were also exhibited by him as Ex.PW-11/E to Ex.PW-11/G. Copy of ledger account of M/s Shivam Engineers and Fabricators w.e.f. 01.04.2010 to 31.05.2010 and 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 were marked as Mark PW-11/XA and Mark PW-11/XB by the said witness. The witness also Exhibited Ex.PW-11/H i.e. Road permit form XXXVIII of Government of U.P bearing no. 2052987. Printed receipt of Sales Tax Department in respect of submission of form 38 and the forms were put on record as Mark PW-11/XC and Mark PW- 11/XD respectively by the said witness.
Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 15 of 45 He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels of both the accused.
(xii) PW-12 Sh. Vijay Chettiar, Deputy SP, EO-I, CBI New Delhi, stated that on 12.05.2010, he was involved in conducting surprise checks at various placed in regard to adulteration allegations. The FIR was endorsed to him on the same date and later on he took over the investigation. The said witness exhibited copy of the FIR as Ex.PW-12/1 and seizure memo in respect of seizure of different petroleum products, chemicals, pumps, generators and other articles of the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co., Geeta Colony, Delhi, prepared on 14.05.2010 by him as Ex.PW-12/2 (Colly).
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for both the accused.
(xiii) PW-13 Sh. Deepak Trivedi stated that in April 1991 as Deputy Manager, Sales, BPCL and his job profile was retail outlet dealership management and that he was also conducting inspections of the dealers for statutory compliances. As per the witness the inspection reports dated 28.08.2009 i.e. Ex. PW 9/1, dated 02.03.2010 i.e. Ex. PW 9/2 and dated 30.04.2010 i.e. Ex. PW 9/3 was stated to be partly prepared by him and partly by Sh. C.S. Rawat (PW9) and the same bears his signature at point A. His cross-examination is recorded as nil despite opportunity given.
(xiv) PW-14 Sh. Mohd. Hussain Ali Khan, who worked in BPCL from the year 1981 and retired in the year 2015 exhibited the inspection report dated 03.03.2009 prepared by Sh. Sunil Sehgal as Ex.PW-14/1 bearing the initials of the witness at point B. Letter dated 20.03.2009 by the dealer of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 16 of 45 Co. qua the compliance was exhibited as Ex.PW-14/2 and letter dated 13.05.2010 by company BPCL stopping the supply of LDO and MTO to M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. as Ex.PW-14/3. The letter dated 20.04.2011 of Sh. Vipin Satsangi, the then Territory Manager (Industrial), M/s BPCL, Delhi addressed to Dy. SP, CBI, was exhibited by the witness as Ex.PW-14/4 and production cum seizure memo dated 04.02.2011 vide which the witness has handed over the file of Office Territory Manager U.P in respect of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co., Geeta colony, Delhi to IO as Ex.PW-14/5.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for both accused.
(xv) PW-15 Sh. Shamshuddin Khan, presently working at Block Development Office, North East, DC office complex, Nandnagari, Delhi-93, stated that in the year 2010 he was directed by his officer D.P Singh, the then SDM Gandhinagar, to represent office of Deputy Commissioner Collector, District East, Delhi in respect of Evacuation of confiscated essential commodities (petroleum product) kept in the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. located at Block-8, Geeta Colony, Delhi. The witness identified the signature of Sh. D.P. Singh at point A of the Authority Letter dated 15.10.2020 from the Office of Deputy Commissioner, District East, addressed to SSP, CBI, EOU-III and the said letter was exhibited as Ex.PW-15/A. The witness also identified his signature at point A on memorandum dated 15.10.2010 in connection with evacuation of confiscated essential commodities by BPCL, Bijwasan, New Delhi and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW-15/B. The witness further identified his signature at point A on memorandum dated Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 17 of 45 21.10.2010 regarding evacuation of confiscated petroleum products from the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co., Geeta Colony, Delhi and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW-15/C and annexure-1 along with the same bearing the signature of the witness as Ex.PW-15/C1.
Cross-examination of witness is recorded as nil despite opportunity to the Ld. Counsel for both the accused. (xvi) PW-16, Sh. Yoginder Kumar Sharma stated that in the year 2010 he was working as a Manager and was directed by his Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Khan Market to be present at the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. located at block-8 Geeta Colony, Delhi. Witness identified his signature at point B on Ex.PW-15/B i.e. memorandum dated 15.10.2010 in connection with evacuation of confiscated essential commodities by BPCA, bijwasan, New Delhi and on memorandum prepared on 21.10.2010 regarding completion of evacuation of confiscated petroleum products from the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co., Geeta Colony, Delhi on Ex.PW-15/C as well as on the accompanying Annexure-1 on Ex.PW-15/C1. Evacuation report dated 15.10.2010 was exhibited as Ex.PW-16/A by the said witness. Confiscated petroleum product Evacuation reported dated 20.10.2010, 19.10.2010, 18.10.2010 and 16.10.2010 bearing the signature of witness point B were exhibited as Ex.PW-16/B, Ex.PW-16/C, Ex.PW-16/D and Ex.PW-16/E. The production cum seizure memo dated 21.10.2010, by CBI officials from Smt. Sushila Rani proprietor of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. was exhibited as Ex.PW-16/F. Cross-examination of witness is recorded as nil despite opportunity to the Ld. Counsel for both the accused.
Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 18 of 45 (xvii) PW-17 Sh. Rajan Sand working as Deputy Manager (Engineering) in the year 2010 stated that he was directed by his Territory Manager, to evacuate petroleum products present at the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. located at Block-8, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He identified his signature at point C on memorandum dated 15.10.2010 Ex.PW-15/B as well as on evacuation reports dated 15.10.2010 already Ex.PW-16/A. He also identified his signature at point C in memorandum dated 21.10.2010 i.e. Ex.PW-15/C as well as annexure- A1 along with the said memorandum i.e. Ex.PW-15/C1. He also identified his signature at point C in the reports already exhibited as Ex.PW- 16/C, Ex.PW-16/D and Ex.PW-16/E. Cross-examination of witness is recorded as nil despite opportunity given to the Ld. Counsel for both the accused. (xviii) PW-18 Sh. H.S. Negi, Official of Bharat Petroleum stated that as per documents D-13 (Ex.PW-10/D Colly 1 to 53 sheets) BPL has supplied SKO (total quantity 504 KL), MTO (112 KL), LDO (24 KL) during the period 01.01.2010 to 14.05.2010. He identified the signature of Sh. Sanjay Prakash, Sh. R.M. Tyadi, Lt. Sh. L.P. Maurya and Rakesh Wadhwa on the invoices.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for both accused.
(xix) PW-19 Sh. S.K. Rout, Senior Manager, Quality Assurance, Tondiarpet Lab, Chennai, then working as an Assistant Manager, Quality Assurance Lab, Brijwasan in the year 2007. He identified his signature at point A on the forwarding letter along with reports which have already been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2. As per the witness, the said reports were prepared by Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 19 of 45 him after analysis of samples sent to him.
He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons. He stated that the company uses a dye of blue colour in the kerosene oil supplied for public distribution system (PDS) and it was correct that he did not find blue colour in any of the sample of kerosene.
(xx) PW-20 Sh. Abhay Jain, stated that he has joined in March 2009 as Marketing head in M/s Shiva Asphaltic Products Pvt. Ltd. and submitted original documents in the case of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. from the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 to Sh. S.N. Khan, Dy. SP, CBI Delhi and letter dated 13.04.2011 was exhibited as Ex.PW-20/A (Colly) bearing his signature at point A. Cross-examination of witness is recorded as nil despite opportunity given to the Ld. Counsel for both the accused. (xxi) PW-21 Sh. Rakesh Sharma stated that in the year 2009 they ordered 24 KL of Furnace Oil from M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and that he submitted documents to CBI in the year 2011. He exhibited original forwarding letter dated 09.03.2021 bearing his signature at point A as Ex.PW 21/1 along with GR No. 4791 exhibited as Ex.PW-21/2, original invoice no. 09/444 dated 27.09.2009 as Ex.PW-21/3, original purchase order dated 25.09.2009 as Ex.PW-21/4, certified photocopy true of Form 38 as Ex.PW-21/5 and certified copy of ledger account in respect of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. as Ex.PW-21/6. He identified his signature in Ex.PW-21/5 and Ex.PW-21/6 at point A. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons. He stated that there is no document which shows that accused no.3 Mukesh Goyal has issued any document which was Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 20 of 45 being shown to him.
(xxii) PW-22 Sh. P. Vijay Kumar stated that during the year 2005-2010, he was posted at Noida Regional Office, BPCL and in the year 2010 he went to the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. situated at Geeta Colony, Delhi for raid. The witness identified his signature at point C in Ex.PW-12/2 (Colly).
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
(xxiii) PW-23 Sh. H.P. Gupta, who retired from BPCL in November, 2015 from the post of Chief Manager (Retail), Sales North and submitted that the officer in the rank and above the rank of Sales Officer is authorized to conduct search and seizure of any premises and vehicle as per MDG (Marketing Discipline Guidelines) and that he was aware the CBI has conducted raid at M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and Sh. P. Vijay Kumar (PW-22) and Sh. K. G. Gatwai (PW1) both the then employees of BPCL were part of the said raid. Further that both were competent to conduct the raid as they were above the rank of Sales Officers of BPCL.
Cross-examination of witness is recorded as nil despite opportunity given to the Ld. Counsel for both the accused. (xxiv) PW-24 Sh. Arvind Gupta stated that he was working as Accountant in M/s Perma Engineering and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and his father Sh. Ved Prkash Gupta is the Director of the Company. He further stated that they purchased oil from M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. in the year 2009. He exhibited the forwarding letter dated 13.04.2011 bearing signature of his father at point A along with the bills and GR Form in original along with statement of account submitted by him to CBI as Ex. PW 24/1 (Colly).
Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 21 of 45 Cross-examination of witness is recorded as nil despite opportunity given to the Ld. Counsel for both the accused. (xxv) PW-25 Sh. K. Ravindranath Shetty, retired Senior Manager, stated that on 15.05.2010 he received an order from his Regional Head that he has to accompany CBI officials in certain raids. Thereafter, he along with Dharambir Raghuvanshi (PW26), the then Manager Vijaya Bank went to CBI office and after reaching CBI office he along with Sh. Dharambir Raghuvanshi and other CBI officials went to a company by the name of Oil company, Manohar Park, Rohtak Road, Delhi. He identified his signature on Ex.PW-4/A at point B. He is duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
(xxvi) PW-26 Sh. Dharambir Raghuvanshi, Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank, stated that on 15.05.2010 he received an order from his Regional Head that he has to accompany CBI officials in certain raids. Thereafter, he along with K. Ravindranath Shetty (PW25), the then Manager Vijaya Bank went to CBI office and after reaching CBI office he along with Sh. Ravindranath Shetty and other CBI officials went to a company by the name of Oil company, Manohar Park, Rohtak Road, Delhi. He identified his signature on Ex. PW 4/A at point C. He is duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
(xxvii) PW-27 Sh. S. C. Bhalla submitted that a joint surprise check dated 12.05.2010 was conducted by CBI team comprising B.M. Pandit (PW4), independent witness Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (PW2), KG Ghatwai (PW1) and including him. He identified his signature at point B on Ex.PW-1/1 and stated Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 22 of 45 that the documents were prepared by him in his own writing. He deposed about the proceedings conducted on 12.05.2010 and he identified his signatures on the sealed samples i.e. Ex. P1 to P7 at point D and on Ex. P8 at point B. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
(xxviii) PW-28 Ajeet Singh, Deputy SP, CBI EO-I, New Delhi stated that in 2010 he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI EOW-II, New Delhi and on 15.05.2010 was authorized Sh. Vijay Chettiar (PW12), Inspector CBI, EOW, New Delhi of the case to conduct search U/s 165 Cr.PC at Manohar Park, New Delhi. He also stated that he along with team members and independent witnesses proceeded to the said premises and conducted search and seized the records as mentioned in search list prepared on the spot detailing therein, the proceedings of the search. He identified his signature at point D on two pages of search list dated 15.05.2010 already Ex. PW 4/A. He identified and exhibited the seized file as Ex. PW 28/1 to Ex. PW 28/7 and identified the signature of Sh. K. Ravindra Nath Sethi and Sh. Dharamveer Raghuvanshi at point A and B as they were signed/initials in his presence.
He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
(xxix) PW-29 is Sh. Rajiv Manchanda, one of the Directors of Home Made Bakers India Ltd. and he stated that they used to furnace oil from M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co.. He also deposed that to ensure that no adulterated furnace oil is being supplied by M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and in order to avoid pilferage, they used to appoint their representatives at the loading point i.e. the Depot Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 23 of 45 from where furnace oil was loaded and the representative would accompany the tanker from the depot to their premises. He also deposed that they received a letter from CBI office and in response thereto had supplied the statement of accounts, entire bunch of invoices and details of payment made. He further identified his signature at point A in letter dated 11.04.2011 and exhibited the letter along with the statement of account, 33 invoices and the ledger statement of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. as Ex.PW-29/A(colly). He identified the handwriting of his employees Sh. Y. K. Sharma and Sh. Suraj Thapa qua the endorsement made on the invoices regarding payment and cheque no. by which the payments had been made.
He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons. He could not remember the name of the person with whom they used to deal on behalf of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and that he did not know any person with the name of Praveen Garg. Also, that he did not have any dealing with any such Praveen Garg on behalf of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. (xxx) PW-30 is Inspector Satyapal Kapoor who stated that in the year 2010, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, EO- I, New Delhi and on 15.05.2010 a joint surprise checking was organized by Sh. Bhupender Kumar, Sr. SP with the Sr. Manager of BPCL of the premises M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. at Geeta Colony along with other team members. Also, that they reached the spot at 07:30 AM and checking was conducted. He identified his signature on the joint surprise checking memo at point E on all 6 pages on Ex.PW-1/1.
He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons. He did not remember any enquiry about the Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 24 of 45 owner of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. being made before going for the surprise check. He could not admit or deny whether Smt. Sushila Rani was the proprietor of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co.. (xxxi) PW-31 is Shah Nawaz Khan who deposed that during the period April, 2009 to July, 2013, he was posted at CBI, EO-I, New Delhi, in the capacity of Deputy SP/Additional SP. He stated that during the year 2010/11 he has conducted the investigation in RC No.0722010(E)0004 dated 12.05.2010 and that initial IO was Inspector Vijay Chettiar (PW12). It is stated that around July 2010, this case was transferred to him for investigation and that he filed charge-sheet in this case after conclusion of investigation. He identified the signature of Sr. SP Bhupender Kumar on the letter i.e. an application addressed to Deputy Commissioner, East Delhi for confiscation and disposal of the seized petroleum products and other items U/s 6-A of EC Act. He also exhibited letter dated 03.09.2010 as Ex.PW-31/2 issued by Sr. SP, CBI/EOU-III, New Delhi addressed to General Manager (Retail) North, BPCL, Noida on the subject of refining and auction (wrongly mentioned as option in the evidence statement) of articles confiscated U/s 6 of EC Act, 1955 at site no. 1, Block-8, Geeta Colony, Delhi of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. in compliance of Order no. F.15 (5) SDM/GN/CBI/2010/1711 dated 25.08.2010 of Sh. S.S. Ghonkrokta, Deputy Commissioner/Collector, District East, Delhi regarding RC No.0722010(E)0004 dated 12.05.2010 and identified his signature. He further identified his signature at point D on the pages on Ex.PW-15/B and Ex.PW-15/C. He identified his signature at point B at Ex. PW-5/5 i.e. production- cum-seizure memo dated 12.05.2010. He also deposed that Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 25 of 45 documents i.e. Ex.PW-10/D (Colly), Ex. PW 9/3 (Colly), Ex.PW- 10/A and Ex.PW-10/B were received by him and the seizing of documents Ex. PW-5/1, Ex. PW-5/2, Ex. PW-5/3 and Ex. PW- 5/4. He also stated that Ex.PW-14/5 was in his writing and bears his signature at point already marked A. He identified the signature of Sh. M. H. A. Khan, Sr. Manager, Coordination Delhi at point B. He identified his signature on Ex.PW-14/5 at point already marked A. He further identified the signature/initials of Sh. M. H. A. Khan on the document which was exhibited as Ex.PW-31/3 i.e. one file of BPCL in respect of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. He further identified his signature at point B and signature of Sh. Anil Sinha at point already marked A in exhibit Ex.PW-7/1. He identified his signature on exhibit Ex. PW-8/1 at point C and signature of Sh. Sanjay Adlakha (PW8) at point already marked A & B. He also stated that Ex.PW-24/1 (Colly), Ex.PW-21/1 to Ex.PW-21/6 were received by him during investigation from Director Perma Engineering & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd and Steel Smith Ghaziabad during his investigation. The copy of marketing discipline guidelines 2005 of BPCL was marked as Mark PW-31/X (colly), letter dated 27.08.2010 received from BPCL along with original authority letter was marked as Mark 31/X1 and letter dated 13.04.2011 received from Shiva Asphaltic Products Pvt. Ltd. with documents marked as Mark PW-31/X2. He identified his signature at point B and signature of Sh. Gulshan Budhiraja (PW-11) at point already marked A on Ex.PW-11/A. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons. He stated that neither he was the IO at the time when the raid was conducted nor was present at the spot when Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 26 of 45 the initial checking was done. Also, that during investigation he did not receive any complaint from the KOD for non-supply of Kerosene oil by the M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. Also, that as parallel marketing of kerosene oil was permissible during the relevant period there was no occasion for him to investigate from the department in respect of any differentiation of the kerosene oil supplied to PDS or that available for parallel marketing. He admitted that kerosene oil is not covered under the motor spirit and high speed diesel oil order 2005. He also admitted that there was no agreement between BPCL and accused no.1 Praveen Garg and Mukesh Goyal and during investigation he did not come across any complaint from BPCL against M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. in respect of sale of petroleum product beyond the agreement.
7. Thereafter, Prosecution evidence (PE) was closed on 04.01.2023.
8. The statement of the accused persons Praveen Garg and Mukesh Goyal were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 14.02.2023 wherein both the accused persons denied the allegations against them stating that they were innocent and have been involved in a false case.
9. The accused persons chose not to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
10. I have heard the arguments in detail by the Ld. APP for CBI and Ld. Counsel Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. The judicial record, documents as well as relevant notifications have been duly perused. During the course of final arguments, an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the CBI for summoning of Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 27 of 45 witness Virender Singh and the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2023.
RELEVANT NOTIFICATIONS:-
11. The relevant notifications/law are being reproduced for the sake of convenience:-
Order of Ministry of Petroleum And Natural Gas, New Delhi, 19th December, 2005, G.S.R.729(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) and in supersession of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby makes the following Order, namely:-
Definitions of 2(f)- "Malpractices" shall include the following acts of omission and commission in respect of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel :-
(i) Adulteration
(ii) Pilferage
(iii) stock variation
(iv) unauthorized exchange
(v) unauthorized purchase
(vi) unauthorized sale
(vii) unauthorized possession
(viii) over-charging
(ix) sale of off-specification product and
(x) short delivery.
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Kerosene (Restriction on Use And Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993- Section 2. Definitions part (h) "parallel marketeer" means a person, firm, company, institution, association of persons, or organization engaged in parallel marketing system".
Section 3- "Restriction on use of Kerosene oil supplied under public distribution system- (1) No person shall use kerosene oil supplied Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 28 of 45 under the public distribution system for any purpose other than cooking and illumination:
PROVIDED THAT THE Central or State Government may by order permit any person to use kerosene oil for such other purposes as it may specify in that order.
(2) No dealer appointed under the public distribution system or a transporter shall sell, distribute or supply kerosene oil under the public distribution system to any person other than the person to whom the supplies are meant for.
(3-A) Restriction on sale and use of kerosene oil imported under Parallel Marketing System- No person shall sell or use kerosene oil imported under the parallel marketing system as a fuel or as additive to the fuel in a motor vehicle.
(3-B) Restriction on sale of kerosene oil by persons not authorized-No person other than the dealer of Government Oil Company or parallel marketeer shall sell kerosene oil to any person. (3-C) Restriction on sale and use of kerosene oil, indigenously produced or imported and marketed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and IBP Co.
Limited-No person shall sell or use kerosene oil marketed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and IBP Co. Limited whether indigenously produced or imported, as a fuel or as addictive to the fuel in a motor vehicle.
Section (4) Procurement, storage and sale of kerosene under the public distribution system- (1) No dealer having stock of kerosene supplied under the public distribution system at the business premises, including the place of storage-
(a) shall, unless otherwise directed by the Government or Government Oil Company refuse to sell, distribute or supply the kerosene to any consumer on any working day, during working hourse.
(b) shall keep his business premises, including Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 29 of 45 the place of storage, closed during working hours on any working day without the prior written permission of the Government or the Government Oil Company.
(c) shall sell, distribute or supply kerosene at a price higher than that fixed by the Government or Government Oil Company.
(2) Every dealer appointed under the public distribution system shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that adequate stocks of kerosene are available at the business premises including the place of storage at all times.
Explanation- For the purpose of sub-clause (1) the expression "working hours" means the working fixed by the concerned Oil Company in accordance with the shops and Establishments Act in force in the respective State or Union Territory.
The Kerosene (Restriction on Use And Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993, Section 7- Maintenance of records and furnishing of information by parallel marketeer-
(a) Every parallel marketeer before commencing the (import, store), transportation, packing, marketing, distribution or sale of Kerosene oil shall intimate to the Central Government in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas his intention to engage in all or any one of the above activities specifying therein his capability to do so, and other relevant particulars.
(b) The parallel marketeer of kerosene oil shall submit a monthly return before the 15 th day of the following month giving details of kerosene oil imported portwise, to the Central Government in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
(c) The parallel marketeer shall furnish to the Central Government in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas or to such authority as may be specified by that Government in this regard, such as the information as may be directed.
(d) The parallel marketeer shall file end-use certificates from industrial consumers to whom he sells the kerosene oil and also furnish Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 30 of 45 customer wise sales to the state Civil Supplies Authorities by whatever name called, on a quarterly basis.
(e) The parallel marketeer shall ensure that quality checks are carried out to ensure that kerosene oil meets Bureau of Indian Standards Specification No. IS-1459 in all respects before the imported kerosene oil is discharged into the storage infrastructure at the port or sold to any person.
(f) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and IBP Co.
Limited shall file end-use certificatefrom industrial consumers to whom they sell the kerosene oil and also furnish customer wise sales to the State Civil Supplies Authorities by whatever name called, on a monthly basis.
(g) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat petroleum Corporation Limited and IBP Co.
Limited shall ensure that quality checks are carried out to ensure that kerosene oil meets Burea of Indian Standards Specification No. IS- 1459 in all respects before the indigenously produced kerosene oil is sold and in case of imported kerosene oil before the imported kerosene oil is discharged into the storage infrastructure at the port or sold.
Section-8 Kerosene under public distribution system to be made distinguishable- kerosene supplied through public distribution system shall be made distinguishable from the kerosene to be imported, sold or distributed under parallel marketing system by use of suitable measures to be adopted by the Government Oil Companies as and when necessary.
Para (8A) Kerosene to be blended with marker- All kerosene sold in India, whether under the public Distribution System or parallel marketing system, shall be blended with marker at five parts per million (ppm) concentration with the objective of preventing its diversion or Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 31 of 45 adulteration of other petroleum products. Section- 9 Power of entry search and seizure-
(a) An officer of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies of the Government, not below the rank of an Inspector authorised by such Government and notified by the Central Government or any officer authorised and notified by the Central government, or any officer not below the rank of Sales Officer of a Government oil Company authorized by the Government and notified by the Central Government, may, with a view to ensuring compliance with the provisions of this order with such assistance as may be required, for the purpose of the satisfying himself that this order or any order made thereunder has been complied with:
(i) stop and search any vessel or vehicle or other conveyance which the officer has reason to believe, has been, or is being, or is about to be used in contravention of this Order;
(ii) enter or search any place with such aid or assistance, as may be necessary, and
(iii) seize and remove with such aid or assistance, as may be necessary, books registers and other records pertaining to kerosene business, alongwith vehicle, vessel or any other conveyance used for carrying such stock, if he has reason to believe that any provision of this Order has been or is being or is about to be contravened and thereafter take or authorise the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of the kerosene at the Office of the Government Oil Company and the vehicle, vessel or other conveyance so seized before the Collector having jurisdiction under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), for their safe custody pending such procedures (draw and test samples of the product with the aid of test kit to determine blending of marker in kerosene).
(b) The provisions of Sec. 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 32 of 45 search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to searches and seizures under this order.
Para (10) Overriding effect of the Order-The provisions of this Order shall have the overriding effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any order made by a State Government or a Union Territory or by an officer of such State Government or Union Territory before the commencement of this order, except as regards anything done or omitted to be done thereunder before such commencement.
The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II- Section 3-Sub-Section (i), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Order New Delhi, 01st November, 2007- G.S.R. 689(E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), the Central Government hereby makes the following order further to amend the Solvent, Raffinate and Slp Automobiles) Order, 2000, namely:-
1.(1) This Order may be called the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2007.
(2) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
2.In the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000, in the Schedule, serial number 15 and the entry relating thereto, shall be omitted.
The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II- Section 3-Sub-Section (I), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Order New Delhi, 30th July, 2009- G.S.R. 561(E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(10 of 1955), the Central government hereby makes the following order further to amend the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000, namely:-
1. (i) This Order may be called the Solvent, Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 33 of 45 Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Amendment Order, 2009.
(ii) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Schedule to the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000, after serial number 14 and entry relating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely:-
"(15) Mixed Fuel Oil (MFO)"
REASONING FOR DECISION:-
12. Before proceeding any further with the matter, it is pertinent to mention here that order dated 05.06.2013 by Sh.
Rakesh Kumar, the then Ld. ADJ, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi wherein the accused Smt. Sushila Rani was discharged. The said order of the Revisional Court was not challenged by the CBI and has thus attained finality.
13. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons used to treat the blue colour kerosene oil first with Hydrogen Peroxide and one black chemical and when colour of the blue kerosene turned light brown, it used to be further treated with bleaching powder to make it colourless for purpose of adulteration. The prosecution has relied upon the scientific examination report which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/2. The findings of the test report are being mentioned here under :-
Test Report findings:-
(i) Test Report of Light Diesel Oil (LDO) dated 18.05.2010 of Sample-1 LDO mentions that: This product has abnormally low flash point, low pour point and also high sulphur content.
This does not conform to specification of LDO currently marketed by us.
Case No. 337/19 DL-00531
CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 34 of 45
(ii) Test Report of Kerosene dated 18.05.2010 of Sample-
2(Kerosene Oil Chemically treated to remove blue dye) mentions that: The product fails to meet kerosene specification wrt colour. More over the presence of fine brownish particles also shows that this product has been treated with some chemicals and the product has pale yellow colour.
(iii) Test Report of Light Diesel Oil (LDO) dated 18.05.2010 of Sample-3 (CBS Haldia) mentions that: This product fails to meet LDO specification wrt Ash content and Flash point, it has abnormally low pour point, high Kinematic viscosity and high sulphur content that what is being marketed by us. To the best of our knowledge it seems to be a mixture of CBS i.e. Carbon Black feed Stock and Kerosene.
(iv) Test Report of High Speed Diesel (HSD)-BS IV dated 18.05.2010 of Sample-4 (HSD) mentions that: This product meets the specification of diesel for BS IV though its very marginally failing for Sulphur.
(v) Test Report of Kerosene dated 18.05.2010 of Sample-5 (Kerosne Oil treated with bleaching powder) mentions that:
The product fails to meet kerosene for colour specification.
14. It is very surprising that in the present matter no report from the chemical examiner qua the other chemicals seized at the time of the search such as Hydrogen Peroxide, one black chemical, bleach etc., was put on record by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons. Also, that the samples lifted by the CBI were not sent to the independent lab by the investigating officer rather they were sent by a witness who joined in the search to their own lab at BPCL.
15. PW-4 Sh. D. M. Pandit has exhibited the sample of the Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 35 of 45 alleged bleaching powder as Ex.P-8. However, as mentioned above no report of any chemical examiner is on record qua the same in the present case verifying the same to be bleaching powder. PW-19 S.K. Rout who was working as Asstt Manager, Quality Assurance Lab, Brijwasan and received the samples for testing the products against their respective BIS specifications from quality control cell, Noida. During his cross-examination, also stated that he did not find any blue colour in any of the sample kerosene.
16. Testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-15, PW-
16, PW-17, PW-27, PW-28, PW-30, PW-22, PW-25 K. Ravindra Nath and PW-26 Sh. Dharambir Raghuvanshi nowhere mention that any blue colour dyed kerosene oil meant for public distribution scheme was present, evacuated or seized during the search operations on 12.05.2010 at the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co.
17. The test reports of sample no.2 and sample no.5 pertaining to kerosene oil alleged to be treated with bleaching powder is vague and only mentions that the product fails to meet kerosene specification with respect to colour. Though it is mentioned that there are fine brownish particles and that the same is treated with some chemicals and is of pale yellow colour, it cannot be presumed that the same is a definite opinion that it was blue dyed kerosene meant for public distribution and that it was treated with chemicals present at the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. Moreover, no eye witness to the allegation of treating the kerosene with hydrogen peroxide and some black chemical and thereafter, treating the same with bleaching powder has been examined by the prosecution. The testimony of PW-3 is Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 36 of 45 quite vague in nature and he only states that he used to clean the tankers with white powder and the tanker used to contain white oil and blue green oil.
18. Ld. APP for the CBI has argued that no license was available to M/s Lakra Oil trading Co. or to accused no.3 Mukesh Goel for storage and that white kerosene oil was found in its premises which shows clear violation of Section 3 of Kerosene Order, 1993 which violates the provision of Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act. Further, a previous intimation to the Central Govt is required before any dealer or agent engages himself in parallel marketing as per Section 7 of Kerosene Order, 1993.
19. As per the case of the prosecution itself that Smt. Sushila Rani w/o Sh. Azad Singh, prop. M/s Lakra Oil trading Co. is the proprietor of M/s Lakra Oil trading co. and the business affair of the said co. has been handed over to Praveen Garg and as desired by Praveen Garg a GPA was executed by her in favour of Mukesh Goyal. The prosecution has relied upon the GPA dated 01.08.2006 purportedly executed between Smt. Sushila Rani and accused no.3 Mukesh Goyal on behest of accused no.1 Praveen Garg. The said GPA (D-40) has neither been exhibited nor proved in the present matter. No specimen signature/GEQD report qua the signatures on the GPA being that of Smt. Sushila Rani or Mukesh Goyal is on record. As Smt. Sushila Rani was earlier arrayed as an accused in the present matter and was not examined as a witness to prove the said GPA dated 01.08.2006. Also, no witness qua the due attestation on the said GPA to show that the attesting person saw the original before attestation was examined by the CBI. Only the seizure Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 37 of 45 memo of the attested copy of the GPA has been exhibited in the present matter as Ex.PW-16/F.
20. Ld. APP for the CBI has relied upon Ex.PW-16/F i.e. Seizure memo by way of which attested copy of GPA dated 01.08.2006 is stated to have been produced by Smt. Sushila Rani to CBI officials was seized. CBI has relied upon the testimony of PW-16 who has seized the attested copy and section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 which makes the execution of Power of Attorney absolute on its execution and that the execution of Power of Attorney makes the Done representative and agent of the executor. However, the testimony of PW 16 does not prove the authenticity of the alleged GPA, original of which was never put on record by the CBI and the seizure memo only pertains to the photocopy of the same being seized in the present matter. Due attestation or execution of the GPA has also not been proved by the CBI therefore, the arguments of the Ld. APP for CBI are not tenable.
21. CBI has also relied upon the testimony of witness PW-3 Suraj employee M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co., PW-11 Sh Gulshan Budhiraja and other witnesses on the point that they have deposed that Mukesh Goel was managing the affairs of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. The testimony of PW 3 is vague as already discussed above and he only states that the owner of the company was Mukesh Goyal. In his cross-examination he contradicted himself by stating that he was not aware who the owner of the company was. No specific statement as to whether it was the accused persons namely, Praveen Garg and Mukesh Goyal who were carrying out the affairs of the M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. is recorded in his statement. No identification of Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 38 of 45 accused Mukesh Goyal by PW3 is on record. The other employees/workers found that at the time of search at the premises i.e. Virender and Giriraj were not examined during prosecution evidence. It was only during the time of the final arguments, the prosecution filed an application for examination of Virender which was disposed of as the same has been filed belatedly.
22. Further it is the argument of the CBI that the identity of the accused Mukesh Goyal as authorized representative of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. is not disputed as it is an admitted stand before this court that he was authorized representative of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. as can be seen through an application filed by him for releasing of articles seized during inspection specifically showing himself to be an authorized representative of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. Section 3 of IEA defines the word "proved" as "A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". The use of the word "after considering the matters before it" instead of "after considering the evidences before it" in Section 3 of IEA in the aforesaid definition clearly indicates that while considering a fact as proved, the court may very well consider other material on record in addition to oral and documentary evidence produced before the court. Further, to allow accused to contend otherwise than the previous stand taken by accused would be allowing him to abuse the process of the court by blowing hot and cold at the same time. In addition to that PW-3 has specifically named the accused Mukesh Goyal Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 39 of 45 during his evidence before the court and PW-11 Sh. Gulshan Budhiraja has also stated that their firm used to deal with accused Mukesh Goyal who worked in M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. Also that, the accused has nowhere taken the plea that he is not Mukesh Goyal.
23. Though, the accused Mukesh Goyal has nowhere denied his identity as the same and it is on record that an application was filed by him stating himself to be authorized representative of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co., it cannot be presumed that any activity of adulteration or unauthorized storage, if happening at the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. was being carried out at his directions only and he cannot be made vicariously liable for any criminal act/alleged offences being carried out by M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co.
24. Testimony of various witnesses of prosecution only has stated that the proprietor of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. was Sushila Devi/Rani. The prosecution examined PWs 7 (Sh. Tek Chand Badhan), 8 (Sh. Sanjay Adlakha), 11 (Sh. Gulshan Budhiraja), 20 (Sh. Abhay Jain), 21 (Sh. Rakesh Sharma), 24 (Sh. Arvind Gupta) & 29 (Sh. Rajiv Manchanda) to prove the sales done by M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. through the present accused persons. None of the witnesses ever proved that the dealing on behalf of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. were done by the present accused persons. They have even failed to identify the present accused person. The prosecution witnesses No. 9 Sh. Chander Singh Rawat and 10 Sh. Pulkit Mathur, prove that it was Sushila Rani or Pratap who got the inspection done and signed the same.
25. PW-8 Sh. Sanjay Adlakha who worked in the company Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 40 of 45 of M/s Kiran Udyog Ltd. during the 2010-12 stated that they needed furnace oil to generate heat for melting of aluminum and the same was used to be supplied by M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. till 2011 and accused Praveen Garg was running the business of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. However during cross-examination he stated that all invoice Ex.PW8/3 (colly) have been signed at the printed words for Lakra Oil Trading Co. and he cannot identify the signatures appearing at "for Lakra Oil Trading Co." as he had no opportunity to meet the person of Lakra Oil Trading Co. Further that he had not stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that accused Praveen Garg was the owner of Lakra Oil Trading Co.
26. PW-9 Sh. Chander Singh Rawat sales assistant of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd during the year 2001 to 2013 in his cross-examination stated that they used to have interaction with the licensee M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. proprietor Smt. Sushila Devi and that it was correct that Smt. Sushila Devi was responsible for running of license granted to her by BPCL. PW- 10 Sh. Pulkit Mathur who worked as Sr Manager in BPCL in the year 2010 with the file of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. as required for giving documents to CBI exhibited PW10/A i.e. the certified copy of DDA allotment letter dated 12.02.1998 which was for distributorship to Smt. Sushila Rani and the dealership agreement b/w BPCL and Smt. Sushila Rani proprietor of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. for kerosene and light diesel oil as Ex.PW-10/B. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Smt. Sushila Devi was responsible for running of the license granted to her by BPCL. PW-11 Sh Gulshan Budhiraja who worked in M/s Shivam Engineer and Fabricator stated that they used to purchase furnace oil from M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and that his firm used to deal Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 41 of 45 with one Mukesh Goyal who worked with M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. The witness did not identify the accused Mukesh Goyal.
27. PW-1 i.e. Sh. K. G. Ghatwai official of BPCL who joined the CBI team for inspection on 15.5.2010 also during his cross-examination submitted that he was not aware as to who was the owner of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and he could not state whether Praveen Garg was the owner of the company or he was in any manner connected with the said company. As per his statement he had not met the said accused till the time he remained at the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. Geeta Colony at the time of search or thereafter, PW-2 another member of the search team stated that they were informed that the premises belong to M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. and proprietor of the same was Praveen Garg after CBI made inqueries from the people present at the premises. However, during cross- examination he stated that he could not remember if any document was found at the spot to show that Praveen Garg was the proprietor of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. Moreover, PW-4 i.e. Sh. B. M. Pandit official of CBI who was deputed to carry out the surprise check at the premises of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co., Geeta Colony on 12.5.2010 during his cross-examination stated that as per record i.e. KOD license Ex.PW5/2 the name of the licensee is Sushila Devi of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co.
28. The prosecution also examined employees of various companies namely M/s Prema Engineering and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwadi, M/s Steel Smith, Industrial Area Bulandshahar Road, Ghaziabad and M/s Kiran Udyog Pvt Ltd., IMT Manesar, Gurgaon qua their allegation of supplying of inferior and adulterated furnace oil and other petroleum products to them.
Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 42 of 45 Then employee of M/s Jaycee Steel Pvt Ltd. was also examined as PW-7 who had purchased furnace oil from M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. However, the said official also stated that he could not remember who was running the business of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co.
29. As per the Test Report of sample no.4 HSD i.e. Ex. PW-1/2, the product seized meets the specification of diesel for BS-IV though, it is very marginally failing for sulfur which shows that no evidence of any adulteration in HSD can be proved by the CBI. Also, no witness or any complaint qua the accused persons selling the same has been put on record and hence no malpractice as alleged to the same stood prove in the present matter.
30. It is on record that LDO was decontrolled by notification dated 19.11.2019 and deleted from the list and parallel marketing of kerosene was allowed vide kerosene (restriction on use and fixation of sealing prices) order 1993.
31. No complaints were put on record by the CBI to prove that the accused persons were dealing in adulterated kerosene or petroleum product. Motor Spirit Oil was not found in the surprise check and no evidence has been lead by the prosecution from BPCL to show that the kerosene lifted from BPCL under PDS has not been delivered to the KODs. Also, as per the witness of the prosecution only acknowledgement of delivery of petroleum product has to be made within 36 hours of delivery and no further product was handed over unless the said condition was satisfied. Further as per PW5, proper compliance report has been submitted by M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. on the challans Ex. PW- 5/4 except challans cancelled.
Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 43 of 45
32. The provision of kerosene (restriction of use and fixation of ceiling price) order 1993 allows parallel marketing of kerosene oil and provision of clause 10 proved that the provision thereunder shall have an overriding effect on all other controlled orders issued by the Central or the State Government, thus, the possession of kerosene oil does not remain an offence in view of the same. Even for the sake of arguments it is presumed that kerosene oil was found at the premises M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co., it has not been proved that the same was meant for PDS as there was no blue colour and it cannot be presumed that the same was stored or kept at the instance of the accused persons Mukesh Goyal and Praveen Garg as the premises was that of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. Further, for any violation of the agreement with BPCL, it is on record that Sushila Rani was the proprietor of the same and the said dealership was not transferable. The GPA allegedly executed between Mukesh Goyal and Sushila Rani has not been proved, therefore, for any violation of the agreement with the BPCL, the accused persons Mukesh Goyal and Praveen Garg cannot be held liable as there is no privity of contract between them. The BPCL has never lodged any complaint/case against Ms. Sushila Rani in respect of transfer of the agreement to any third person or that it has allowed the present accused persons to run M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co.
33. No evidence qua essential ingredients of Section 120-B IPC that the accused persons Mukesh Goyal and Praveen Garg entered into an agreement to commit an offence and for doing so the accused persons did or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which was not itself illegal, by illegal means came on record no evidence of any act being done at the behest of the accused Case No. 337/19 DL-00531 CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 44 of 45 persons or by themselves in pursuance of the agreement could be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons were running or looking after the affairs of M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co. in their own right and were responsible for any illegal act, if any being done by the company.
34. Consequent to the above detailed discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons namely, Praveen Garg and Mukesh Goyal beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/s 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 r/w Section 120-B IPC.
35. The accused persons Praveen Garg and Mukesh Goyal are accordingly acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 r/w Section 120-B IPC.
MAHIMA Digitally signed
by MAHIMA RAI
RAI SINGH
Date: 2023.10.06
SINGH 17:45:54 +0530
Announced in open Court (MAHIMA RAI SINGH)
on 06.10.2023 CMM/RADC/New Delhi
06.10.2023
Certified that this judgment contains 45 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed by MAHIMA MAHIMA RAI
RAI SINGH
Date: 2023.10.06
SINGH 17:46:12 +0530
(MAHIMA RAI SINGH)
CMM/RADC/New Delhi
06.10.2023
Case No. 337/19 DL-00531
CBI Vs. Praveen Garg & Ors. Page 45 of 45