Bangalore District Court
Nithin Huilgol vs Choona Rafi Ahmed on 6 February, 2026
KABC030458952015
Presented on : 04-07-2015
Registered on : 04-07-2015
Decided on : 06-02-2026
Duration : 10 years, 7 months, 2 days
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 6th day of February 2026
Present:-
Sri.SOMANATHA, B.A. (Law), L.L.B.,
IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
CC NO.15934/2015
Complainant State by K.G. Halli Police Station
V/s.
Accused Choona Rafi Ahmed,
S/o. Choona Abdul Rehman,
Aged about 49 Years,
R/at No.20/21, 6th cross,
Rashadnagara,
Govindapura Main Road,
Arabic College post,
Bangalore.
(Represented by party-in-person)
- 2- - CC-15934/2015
Date of Report of Offence : 11-03-2015
Date of filing Charge Sheet : 30-06-2015
Name of the Complainant : Sri. Nitin Huligal
Offences complained of:
Sections 409, 465, 468, 489 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC, Section
82 of Registration Act, Section 3 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Order 2001, Section 23 of Petroleum Act, 1934, Section 46 of
Petroleum & Natural Gas regulatory Board Act, 2006 and
Section 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Date of commencing of recording
Evidence : 30-12-2016
Date of closing of Evidence : 14-01-2026
Opinion of the Judge : Accused is acquitted
*******
JUDGMENT
This case is arose out of Crime No.0111/2015 of K.G. Halli Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 468, 489 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC, Section 82 of Registration Act, Section 3 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Order 2001, Section 23 of Petroleum Act, 1934, Section 46 of Petroleum & Natural Gas regulatory Board Act, 2006 and Section 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 based on the gist of facts stated in the FIR which has set this criminal case in motion against the accused.
- 3- - CC-15934/2015
2. The case of the prosecution is that M/s. AEGIS Logistics Limited own a office at No.202, Tower-B, Pennosule business park, G.K.Mark, Lower Parel West, Mubai-13, M/s. AEGIS Logistics Limited is a authorized dealer of Auto Gas distribution, accused was running a M/s. ABN Auto Gas bunk at No.40, old No.2, Nagawara Main Road, Kadugondanahalli, Arabic Post, Bengaluru- 560 045, on 02.07.2008 M/s. AEGIS Logistics Limited had entered an dealership agreement with M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk. M/s. AEGIS Logistics Limited is under obligation to supply equipments, maintain the bunk with the help of staff and supply auto gas to the ABN Auto Gas company. M/s. AEGIS Logistics Limited suspected that the ABN Auto Gas bunk involved in supplying more quantity of auto gas than the auto gas supplied by the M/s. AEGIS Logistics Limited. On 11.03.2015, complainant-CW1 with their technical staff-CW3 to 5 visited the M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk where they inspected the electrical and electronic devices installed to the bunk which revealed illegalities committed by the M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk between the period of 05.08.2014 to 14.02.2015. Accused fixed alternative lock replacing the radio frequency identification device box and he fixed bye-pass power switch replacing the switch installed by company for the safety of gas pump inside the LPG
- 4- - CC-15934/2015 control pannel. MCB switch was installed with an intention to get a direct connection to the pump in order to start the gas pump, when they have tallied to the dispensers of gas delivery, 4 digital display, digital automatic gas tank gage and documents with gas auto gas supplied from their company they came to know that accused sold excess 113.3 metric auto gas than what was supplied by the M/s. AEGIS Logistics Limited, CW8 has submitted a report regarding the illegality committed by the M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk as requested by CW13 on 22.06.2015. Accused filled auto gas of some other company and sold it to the customers contrary to the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement entered with M/s. AEGIS Logistics Limited. Accused caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,41,45,540/- by selling 113.3 metric tone excess auto gas than what was supplied by M/s. AEGIS Logistics Limited. Accused not only fabricated surrender of lease deed and special power of attorney but also he presented surrender of lease deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar Office. Having knowledge that the LPG auto gas is essential commodity and combustible gas, he had used the unsafe wires replacing the electrical wire and bypass power switch replacing a switch inside the LPG control pannel so
- 5- - CC-15934/2015 he had committed the offences of criminal of breach of trust, provisions of Essential Commodities Act and Petroleum Act.
3. The Kadugondanahalli police had booked the case against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 468, 489 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC, Section 82 of Registration Act, Section 3 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Order 2001, Section 23 of Petroleum Act, 1934, Section 46 of Petroleum & Natural Gas regulatory Board Act, 2006 and Section 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 based on the written complaint of Sri. Nitin Huligal. The Investigating Officer registered the FIR, prepared the spot and seizure panchanama, recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the documents. Having material in the investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences alleged.
4. Upon receipt of the court summons, the accused has entered appearance before the court. The relevant copies have been furnished under Section 207 of Cr. P.C. to the accused. The charge for the offences under Sections 409, 465, 468, 489 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC, Section 82 of Registration Act, Section 3 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Order 2001, Section 23 of Petroleum Act, 1934, Section
- 6- - CC-15934/2015 46 of Petroleum & Natural Gas regulatory Board Act, 2006 and Section 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were framed, explained and read over to the accused before the court. Upon which accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried before the court.
5. In the instant case, the prosecution examined CW1 as PW1, CW3 as PW2, CW4 as PW3, CW7 as PW4, CW5 as PW5, CW9 as PW5, CW10 as PW6, CW8 as PW7, CW11 as PW8, CW13 as PW9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P271. Despite issuing summons, warrants and proclamation warrants, presence of CW2, CW6, CW12 were not secured. Thereby, CW2, CW6, CW12 were dropped from the charge sheet. Evidence on prosecution side closed.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the 313 statement was read over and explained to the accused in English language. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence available on record as false. The accused has not adduced defence evidence.
7. Heard arguments on prosecution side. Defense counsel has filed written arguments along with list of documents. Perused the material available on record.
- 7- - CC-15934/2015
8. The points that arises for the consideration are :
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused being the Proprietor of M/s. ABN Auto Gas having authorized dealership of AEGIS LPG station at K.G.Halli, Nagavara Main Road within the jurisdiction of K.G.Halli Police Station entered into dealership agreement with AEGIS Logistics Limited company on 10.11.2008 on the stipulated terms and conditions for a period of 20 years from 10.11.2008 to 9.11.2028 and during the subsistence of the said agreement accused were selling illegally sources products from other sources at AEGIS Auto LPG station in clear violation of the dealership agreement and laws regulating the storage and sale of Auto LPG and thereby accused have sold approximately 113.30 Metric Tons of products other than the product purchased from the company and the use of such illegal products is hazardous to the public at large and you had illegally and forcefully broke the lock installed by the complainant company and replaced the same with accused own lock and got created and forged the documents and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused has created false documents and surrender of Lease deed and Special Power of Attorney and produced the surrender of lease deed before Sub-Registrar office and got registered the same with fraudulent intention for cheating and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468 of IPC and Section 82 of Registration Act?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused being the Proprietor of M/s. ABN Auto Gas having authorized dealership of AEGIS LPG station at K.G.Halli, Nagavara Main Road within the jurisdiction of K.G.Halli Police Station entered into dealership agreement with AEGIS Logistics Limited company on 10.11.2008 on the stipulated terms and conditions for a period of
- 8- - CC-15934/2015 20 years from 10.11.2008 to 9.11.2028 and during the subsistence of the said agreement accused were selling illegally sources products from other sources at AEGIS Auto LPG station in clear violation of the dealership agreement and laws regulating the storage and sale of Auto LPG and thereby accused have sold approximately 113.30 Metric Tons of products other than the product purchased from the complainant company and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Order 2001?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused in violation of the dealership agreement and laws regulating the storage and sale of Auto LPG has sold the products other than the product purchased from the complainant company and the use of such illegal products is hazardous to the public at large and it has exposed the public to grave risk of loss of life and property due to possibility of fatal activities by firing, explosions and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 23 of Petroleum Act, 1934, Section 46 of Petroleum & Natural Gas regulatory Board Act, 2006 and Section 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that On 21.2.2015 Service Engineer of the complainant company has found that accused had illegally and forcefully broke the lock that the complainant company had installed and replaced the same with your own lock with a malafide intention of sourcing illegal products and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 489 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused has violated the terms and conditions of dealership agreement entered into with the complainant company and has sold the illegal products hazardous to the public at large and illegally broke the lock installed by the complainant company and replaced the same with fraudulent intention and got created the
- 9- - CC-15934/2015 forged document surrender lease deed and Power of Attorney and got registered the same in the office of Sub Registrar with dishonest intention and committed criminal breach of trust and cheated the complainant company and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
7) What Order ?
9. The findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 to 6:- IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.7:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10. Point No.1 to 6:- All these points require common discussion. As the findings to be given on particular point has the direct bearing on other points. Therefore, so as to avoid the repetition of discussion and conclusion. I have taken all these points for consideration at one stretch.
11. CW1-Regional Sales Manager of AEGIS Logistics Limited examined as PW1, CW3-Assistant Manager of Maintenance Department of AEGIS Logistics Limited examined as PW2, CW4- Maintenance Engineer of AEGIS Logistics Limited examined as PW3, CW7-Maintenance Engineer of AEGIS Logistics Limited examined as PW4. CW1-Regional Sales Manager of AEGIS Logistics Limited examined as PW1, CW3-Assistant Manager of
-
- 10 CC-15934/2015 Maintenance Department of AEGIS Logistics Limited examined as PW2, CW4-Maintenance Engineer of AEGIS Logistics Limited examined as PW3, CW7-Maintenance Engineer of AEGIS Logistics Limited examined as PW4, CW5-Junior Officer of AEGIS Logistics Limited examined as PW5.
12. According to the evidences of the afore-mentioned witnesses that their AEGIS Logistics Limited selling the Auto LPG to the customers through the authorized dealers, accused was the owner of M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk of K.G.Halli, Bengaluru, the accused was the one of the dealer of their Auto Gas through M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk of K.G.Halli, Bengaluru, complainant company had entered into an dealership agreement with accused company for a period of 20 years, the dealership agreement was commenced on 10.11.2015, accused was procuring LPG other than the AEGIS Logistics Limited, on 04.02.2015 the complainant company had installed the Radio Frequency Identification Device(RFID) to the M/s. Auto Gas Control Pannel Room, tag fixed to the tanker and the reader is available in the M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk of K.G.Halli, Bengaluru, motor start the unloading the gas when tag fixed to authorized tanker connect to the reader available in M/s. ABN Auto
-
- 11 CC-15934/2015 Gas Bunk of K.G.Halli, Bengaluru, Radio Frequency Identification Device was installed with an intention to monitor the unloading of LPG at M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk of K.G.Halli, Bengaluru, such a dispensary reading cannot be altered, dispensary reader would show the gas dispensed to the customer, that their case is that when Service Engineer visited the M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk of K.G.Halli, Bengaluru on 21.02.2015 they found that lock of RFID was broken and alternate lock was installed by the accused, MCB switch replaced were complainant company installed switch for the safety purpose of LPG gas in the LPG control pannel and installed bypass power switch to start gas pump since LPG is highly inflammable, such acts are not allowed it is hazardous to public life and safety. When they compared actual stock purchased by the dealer and stock sold by dealer Service Engineer found that accused sold 113.3 metric tone Auto LPG between the period of 05.08.2014 to 14.02.2015, complainant informed not to violate the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement to the accused company, accused company goes on violated the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement, the accused bound to purchase the Auto LPG from the complainant company according to the Explosives Act, 1884 and Petroleum Act, 1934, they
-
- 12 CC-15934/2015 suspected that the accused purchased Auto Gas from the outsiders, service reports four in number prepared by the Service Engineers disclose the data regarding the Auto Gas supply, thereby accused caused loss to the complainant company to the tune of Rs.1,41,00,000/-.
13. Defenses raised by the accused are that:
a) Prosecution falsely alleged that ABN Auto Gas has dispensed more product with reference to product purchased from AEGIS Logistics Limited because;
i) No samples have been collected to do lab tests of the adulteration of gas,
ii) No material proof is available regarding procuring the product illegally from the unauthorized source,
iii) Police obtained opinion of HPCL employee which is opposed to law.
b) Removal of radio frequency identification device is a false claim made by the complainant because;
i) Lock has not been recovered,
ii) No test have been conducted regarding the tampering or damaging the seals,
-
- 13 CC-15934/2015
iii) The complainant company supplied the gas without any interruption till 05.03.2015.
c) Allegation that MCB switch replaced were complainant company installed switch for the safety purpose of LPG gas in the LPG control pannel and installed bypass power switch to start gas pump since LPG is highly inflammable, such acts are not allowed it is hazardous to public life and safety unsustainable because;
i) there is clear observation of retail officer of HPCL, Bengaluru that dead stock in storage tank of 1601.8 liters as on 22.06.2015 will not cause any hazard to public or property during the mahazar dated 26.06.2015 but the Investigating Officer concealing the same moved requisition before the District Collector, Bengaluru seeking an order for direct the HPCL to take custody of M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk with a reason that poor persons residing there and LPG gas in the bunk is dangerous.
d) Allegation made by the complainant that special power of attorney and lease surrender deed are all false because;
i) Relying upon the award passed by the Arbitrator contend that complainant themselves claimed dealership agreement and
-
- 14 CC-15934/2015 lease agreement shall continue and claim of the parties is based on incidental memorandum defining revised tenure. Additional defenses:
a) Instant criminal case registered with an intention to black mail the accused to withdraw the Arbitration case.
b) Company or any other persons of M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk made as accused.
c) There was inordinate delay in filing complaint but the complainant has not given plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint.
d) Register entries, Sub-Registrar acknowledge or communication log are not produced and the best evidence with held and therefore, adverse inference will have to be drawn under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act.
e) Non-examination of Investigating Officer fatal to the case.
f) no orders were received from Chief Controller of Explosives for filing complaint.
g) Police seized the dispensing station without following due procedure. Police cannot exercise such power without instructions of Chief Controller, Deputy Chief Controller or Assistant Controller of Explosives. Search and seizure conducted by the police is not in
-
- 15 CC-15934/2015 accordance with law. According to chapter-5 rule 49 and 50 -
licenses under the static and mobile pressure vessels (unfired) rules 1981 Chief Controller of Explosives he obtained license.
Officer specified in section 7 (1) 69 aforementioned law can exercise such power.
14. First and foremost allegation against the accused is that ABN Auto Gas has dispensed 113.3 metric tone more product with reference to product purchased from AEGIS Logistics Limited during the period of 05.08.2014 to 14.12.2015 and 17.75 metric tone during the period of 14.02.2015 to 11.03.2015.
a) Complainant deposed that he cannot tell the exact time of offences because it is a series of events occurred between the period of 05.08.2014 to 11.03.2015, he cannot tell regarding the checking of calibration in dispensary because he is not an expert in the field and Engineers are able to explain it. PW2 do deposed that he was the Manager in Maintenance Department and he was taking care of maintenance activities of the Auto LPG Station located at different parts of the country. Complainant deposed that complaint lodged based on the service report prepared by the Maintenance Engineer and Retail Engineering Officer of the HPCL certified the
-
- 16 CC-15934/2015 authenticity of the analysis report prepared by complainant company. When that is the case, evidences of the Service Engineers, Junior Officer and Retail Engineering Officer of the HPCL along with service report and analysis report must be relied so as to understand whether the ABN Auto Gas has dispensed more product than the product purchased from AEGIS Logistics Limited. CW4-PW3-Service Engineer of AEGIS Logistics Limited admits that calibration is a gas measurement device, even if the Auto Gas is not sold, changes will be happen in the measurement at the time of calibration. CW5-PW5-Junior Officer of AEGIS Logistics Limited admits that even if the Auto Gas is not sold, changes will be happen in the measurement at the time of calibration but he has volunteered that such changes will happen when the recirculation is done before the Government Officer. It is not the prosecution case that the changes in the measurement happened when the recirculation was done before the Government Officer during calibration. Thereby, say of the Junior Officer of AEGIS Logistics Limited changes happen when the recirculation is done before the Government Officer has no relevance in the case on hand. It is crystal clear from the evidences of the Service Engineer and Junior Officer that even if the Auto Gas is not sold, changes
-
- 17 CC-15934/2015 will be happen in the measurement at the time of calibration. Maintenance Engineer is very specific that he does not know when the measurement was taken. That being the position, how the complainant company found that ABN Auto Gas has dispensed more product than product purchased from AEGIS Logistics Limited is suspicious. This being the position, court shall look into the rest of the evidences available on record in order to ascertain that ABN Auto Gas has dispensed more product than product purchased from AEGIS Logistics Limited.
b) Complainant has deposed that he cannot tell who is the supplier of the unauthorized auto gas to the accused. Complainant volunteered that accused must tell that who supplied the unauthorized auto gas. Accused cannot be compelled to furnish incriminating evidence against his own interest. Thereby, accused cannot be called upon to disclose from whom he had obtained auto gas other than the AEGIS Logistics Limited. Who are the actual supplier of the auto gas than the AEGIS Logistics Limited must have been detected during the course of investigation. There is nothing on record showing who are the supplier of the auto gas than the AEGIS Logistics Limited.
-
- 18 CC-15934/2015
c) According to Service Report for ALDS equipment break
down repair report on 14.02.2015 there was a complaint of calibration and the Service Engineer checked the calibration and advised that adjustment must be done through the Ward Officer. Evidences of the prosecution witnesses demonstrate that even if the Auto Gas is not sold, changes will be happen in the measurement at the time of calibration. Service Report for ALDS equipment break down repair report Service Engineer checked the calibration and advised that adjustment must be done through the Ward Officer and nothing more than can be thought of from the Service Report for ALDS equipment break down repair report. Service reports do not demonstrate that ABN Auto Gas has dispensed more product than product purchased from AEGIS Logistics Limited. Further, Maintenance Engineer in unequivocal term deposed that those service reports do not contain signatures of the witnesses. As such, it can be said that they are the self serving reports prepared by the employees of the AEGIS Logistics Limited. Further, no samples have been collected to do the lab test in order to ascertain whether there was adulteration of gas distributed from AEGIS Logistics Limited with Auto Gas distributed from third party.
-
- 19 CC-15934/2015
d) Complainant deposed that opening and closing stock report contains opening stock, quantity of auto gas purchased AEGIS Logistics Limited, quantity of auto gas sold to customers and closing stock as on 14.02.2015. It is said that complainant, Service Engineer and Technical staff visited the ABN Auto Gas Bunk and they found a lot of difference between the supplied gas from AEGIS Logistics Limited and sale to the customers in the ABN Auto Gas bunk. Signature of the complainant alone can be seen in the opening and closing stock report. In other wards it does not contain signatures of the Service Engineer, Technical Staff of AEGIS Logistics Limited. More importantly signatures of the accused or any persons attached to the ABN Auto Gas Bunk are not found in the opening and closing stock report. There is also no explanation why the signatures of the other employees of the AEGIS Logistics Limited and accused or any persons attached to the ABN Auto Gas Bunk not taken on opening and closing stock report. Such a material point entertain doubt about the genuenity of opening and closing stock report. Complainant said that HPCL Officer certified the authenticity of the analysis report prepared by their company during the course of investigation. An analysis report prepared by one company can be relied upon as proof
-
- 20 CC-15934/2015 against another company in criminal case provided it is properly proved, relevant and meets the standards of admissibility under Indian Evidence Act. Evidence of Retail Engineering Officer of HPCL is silent about the analysis report. Retail Engineering Officer of HPCL spoken with regard to the inspection, verification and confirmation report marked at Ex.P265. It is mentioned in the inspection, verification and confirmation report that Retail Engineering Officer of HPCL had inspected the RFID, dispenser electronic totalizer reading and ATG reading and the documents and facts furnished. Oral evidence of the Retail Engineering Officer of HPCL silent about inspection of RFID, dispenser electronic totalizer reading and ATG reading and the documents and facts furnished. Retail Engineering Officer of HPCL has deposed that he had inspected sale and purchase bill of gas which he never mentioned in the inspection, verification and confirmation report. Retail Engineering Officer of HPCL said that he had furnished only inspection, verification and confirmation report to police. When such is the case, inspection, verification and confirmation report furnished by Retail Engineering Officer of HPCL is not supported by any documentary proof. That apart, Retail Engineering Officer has not given any reason for his opinion that ABN Auto Gas has
-
- 21 CC-15934/2015 dispensed more product than product purchased from AEGIS Logistics Limited. Thus, inspection, verification and confirmation report cannot be relied upon to hold that ABN Auto Gas has dispensed more product than product purchased from AEGIS Logistics Limited.
15. Second allegation against the accused is that lock of the Radio Frequency Identification Device box was broken and alternate lock was fixed to the Radio Frequency Identification Device box.
a) The complainant has deposed that their company fitted lock to the Radio Frequency Identification Device box in ABN Auto Gas of the accused, that their Company Engineers found that lock of radio frequency device box was broken and accused put another lock to the RFID box. PW2 do deposed that he came to know that break opening the lock of RFID box which was put by the AEGIS Logistics Limited. So, complainant and Manager of Maintenance Department do not have personal knowledge about the installation of lock of radio frequency device box was broken and accused stated to be put another lock to the RFID box. CW4-PW3-Service Engineer of AEGIS Logistics Limited has deposed that they do not
-
- 22 CC-15934/2015 know is there any chip or memory card in the RFID and he is saying that the accused changed the lock of RFID because chip installed by their company was changed and a different chip was installed. Above two sentences deposition of the Service Engineer is contradictory to one another. As such, it is not to safe to rely upon such a contradictory version of the Service Engineer. Besides, the complainant deposed that chip card contained in the radio frequency identification device was not sent to expert opinion. Thereby, stand taken by the prosecution that the chip installed by the complainant company was changed and a different chip was installed must not sustain. Complainant said that Service Engineers aware of changing the lock of Radio Frequency Identification Device box, whereas CW4-PW3 and CW5-PW5 said that they came to know about changing lock of RFID box through colleague. Ultimately, none of the witnesses have deposed that whether there was a break opening of company lock fitted to RFID box and accused put the alternate lock to the RFID box. It has come in the evidences of employees of AEGIS Logistics Limited that name of the old lock is ABLAGZE lock, they have not produced bill in order to show that such a lock has been purchased by their company and the police have not seized the broken lock from the
-
- 23 CC-15934/2015 because it was not found in the spot. Without there being
purchase bill it cannot believed to be true that the old lock fitted to the RFID box was ABLAGZE lock. Complainant said that he does not know had the police recovered the broken lock. When it comes to the evidence of Maintenance Engineer he has improved the version that broken lock was not recorded because it was not found in the spot. Neither the Panchanama show why not broken lock was recovered from the spot nor offence of screening evidence invoked during the investigation. So, non-recovery of the broken lock fitted to RFID box is fatal to the prosecution case. So, the prosecution failed to prove that lock of the Radio Frequency Identification Device box was broken and alternate lock was fixed to the Radio Frequency Identification Device box. Even the photos have not been produced showing tampering or damaging the lock fitted to the Radio Frequency Identification Device box.
16. Next allegation against the accused is that MCB switch replaced were complainant company installed switch for the safety purpose of LPG gas in the LPG control pannel and installed bypass power switch to start gas pump since LPG is highly inflammable, such acts are not allowed it is hazardous to public life and safety.
-
- 24 CC-15934/2015
a) It is mentioned in the analysis report prepared by the Retail Engineering Officer that Dead stock in storage tank of 1601.8 liters as on 22nd June 2015 will not cause any hazard to public or property. Further, no samples were collected from the dead stock gas found in the bunk and it has not been sent for lab test in order to confirm that such gas found in the ABN Auto Gas hazardous to public health and safety.
b) Maintenance Engineer and Junior Engineer of AEGIS Logistics Limited deposed that no untoward incident had happened in the dispensary station of the accused till date.
c) If I look into the Service Report for ALDS equipment break down repair report I can make out that there was a complaint pertaining to generator side system non working and the Service Engineer advised the ABN Auto Gas, Bengaluru to maintain the constant DG voltage on 15.08.2014, on 04.12.2014 there was a complaint pertaining to DG system non working and the Service Engineer advised the ABN Auto Gas to repair the DG set, on 09.11.2015 there was a complaint pertaining to dispensing switch not working and the Service Engineer checked the dispensing switch and replaced new switch and than it was normal working, It is shown that service reports are signed by the Service Engineers
-
- 25 CC-15934/2015 and M.N.Hussain. Service Report for ALDS equipment break down repair report suggest that whenever there was a machinery faults they were attended by the Service Engineers of complainant company. As I stated earlier, Maintenance Engineer in unequivocal term deposed that those service reports do not contain signatures of the witnesses. As such, it can be said that they are the self serving reports prepared by the employees of the AEGIS Logistics Limited. There is a serious allegation that the Investigating Officer concealing the observation made by the Retail Engineering Officer mode requisition before the District Collector seeking an order for take the M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk to the custody of HPCL. Such being the case, orders passed by the District Collector is a material document to understand that what was the reason for ordering to take the M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk to the custody of HPCL. In fact, Investigating Officer has not produced the orders passed by the District Collector.
d) Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that MCB switch replaced were complainant company installed switch for the safety purpose of LPG gas in the LPG control pannel and installed bypass power switch to start gas pump since LPG is highly inflammable, such acts are not allowed it is hazardous to public life and safety
-
- 26 CC-15934/2015 through the oral evidences and documentary proof placed on record.
17. Fourth allegation made against the accused is that special power of attorney and surrender lease deed are fake documents.
a) Complainant has deposed that according to the Memorandum of Understanding-Ex.P92 accused had agreed to continue the business with complainant company, complainant never issued special power of attorney to anybody else accused put to signatures of the complainant on all pages of the special power of attorney-Ex.P263, accused had signed as both lessor and lessee on surrender lease deed-Ex.P98. It is unnatural that complainant company giving such special power of attorney for cancellation of lease deed. This act done by the accused with dishonest intention to avoid pending payments. Accused continued the business with complainant company till filing FIR i.e., 11.03.2015.
b) Complainant has deposed that when they obtained the certified copy of the lease deed from Sub-Registrar Office it was noticed that accused signed lessor and lessee using forged special power of attorney. Upon obtaining certified copy of the special power of attorney they came to know that it is a fabricated
-
- 27 CC-15934/2015 document because they never issued any power of attorney. Sub- Registrar has only given photo copy of the special power of attorney he has not produced receipt regarding the payment of fee and date when obtained the special power of attorney and surrender lease deed. A reading of the evidence of the complainant it can be said that complainant obtained photo copy of the special power of attorney and certified copy of the surrender lease deed. Photo copy of the special power of attorney and surrender lease deed are produced before the court. Investigating Officer failed to secure the handwriting expert report pertaining to alleged fabrication of the special power of attorney and surrender lease deed. As such, prosecution failed to prove that special power of attorney and surrender lease deed are bogus documents.
18. Accused had raised number of additional defenses in his written arguments. I record the findings on each additional defenses of the accused here below:
a) First additional defence of the accused is that instant criminal case registered with an intention to black mail the accused to withdraw the Arbitration case. Complainant admits in his evidence that he is the right person to say about agreement and
-
- 28 CC-15934/2015 negotiation took place between the accused and complainant company. Therefore, evidence of the complainant can be relied upon in regard to dealership agreement and Memorandum of Understanding. Complainant has deposed that there is a termination clause in dealership agreement, termination clause was revised in Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.01.2014, when he was questioned that according to clause 4 (a) dealership agreement either party can terminated lease for which he replied that clause superseded in Memorandum of Understanding.
dealership agreement tells that notice must be issued before withdrawing the dealership agreement. Memorandum of Understanding speaks that dealer-ABN Auto Gas confirmed dealership termination notice that he had served to all stands Un- conditionally withdrawn with immediate effect and he shall not issue termination notice for a period of three years after sign the Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.01.2014. So, say of complainant that termination of dealership agreement superseded in Memorandum of Understanding cannot be ruled out. Complainant has deposed that the dealership agreement contains arbitration clause and provision for damages, but they have not enforced clause 6(3) of dealership agreement. Clause 6(3) of
-
- 29 CC-15934/2015 dealership agreement says that in case the dealer by any another auto gas at the dispensing station, dealer will immediately become liable to pay and will pay by way of quantified damages of Rs.5 Lakhs to all. When complainant was questioned any dispute may be settled by Arbitrator in clause 4(d) of dealership agreement for which he replied that such dispute shall be subjected to jurisdiction of Mumbai courts. According to dealership agreement the dealer agrees to purchase auto gas from complainant company in the dispensing station set up by them in Bengaluru and the place of arbitration is Mumbai. So, the court can say that complainant company had an opportunity to enforce claim for damages on violating the terms and conditions of dealership and that does not mean that the complainant must not have filed criminal case against the accused.
19. Second additional defence of the accused is that M/s. ABN Auto Gas has not been made as an accused. Accused claims to be Proprietor concern of ABN Auto Gas. Why ABN Auto Gas has not been made as accused is unanswered.
20. Next additional defence of the accused is that there was in ordinate delay in filing complaint but the complainant has not
-
- 30 CC-15934/2015 given Plausible explanation for the delay in lodging complaint. Accused said that incident said to be happened between 05.08.2014 to 14.02.2015. Complaint was lodged on 11.03.2015. Very case of the prosecution is that on 11.03.2015, complainant- CW1 with their technical staff-CW3 to 5 visited the M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk where they inspected the electrical and electronic devices installed to the bunk which revealed illegalities committed by the M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk between the period of 05.08.2014 to 14.02.2015. Therefore, complainant case cannot be doubted on the score that there was in ordinate delay in filing complaint.
21. Fourth additional defence of the accused is that Register entries, Sub-Registrar acknowledge or communication log are not produced and the best evidence with held and therefore, adverse inference will have to be drawn under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act. Complainant deposed that they obtained the copy of the special power of attorney and surrender lease deed from the Sub-Registrar Office. Complainant failed to produce the copy application or receipt regarding the payment of fee before the court. Under such circumstances, Investigating Officer could have secure the Register entries, Sub-Registrar acknowledge or communication
-
- 31 CC-15934/2015 log from the Sub-Registrar Office. Thereby, adverse inference is
drawn that best evidence is withheld because if it is produced it would be unfavorable to the complainant company who withholds it.
22. Fifth additional defence of the accused is that non- examination of Investigating Officer fatal to the case. Investigating Officer did not appear before the court for evidence when the summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrant, proclamation warrant and salary attachment warrant issued by the court. When the case set down for 313 statement, the Investigating Officer was again summoned for evidence allowing the 311 of Cr. PC application filed by the prosecution. Thereafter, Investigating Officer tendered examination-in-chief before the court and then he failed to appear before the court to face the cross-examination from defence even after the best efforts has been made by the prosecution to secure his presence before the court. As such, no value could be attached to the evidence of the Investigating Officer which is not tested by the cross-examination of defence counsel.
23. Last additional defence of the accused is that no orders were received from Chief Controller of Explosives for filing complaint.
-
- 32 CC-15934/2015 Police seized the dispensing station without following due procedure. Police cannot exercise such power without instructions of Chief Controller, Deputy Chief Controller or Assistant Controller of Explosives. Search and seizure conducted by the police is not in accordance with law. He has referred Section 7(1), 7(1)(d),49, 50, 52, 54 and 69 of Static and Mobile Pressure Vessels (Unfired) Rules, 2016. Rule 70 of Static and Mobile Pressure Vessels (Unfired) Rules, 2016 says that Chief Controller of Explosive, Commissioner of Police and Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector have authority to inspect, search and seize. Here in this case, investigation carried by the Police Inspector of K.G.Halli. So, it cannot be held that Police had no authority to conduct the search and seizure of dispensary station. Rule 4 and 12 of Static and Mobile Pressure Vessels (Unfired) Rules, 2016 say that prior approval or permission from the Chief Controller of the Explosive is required for critical action like manufacturing, importing or repairing/modifying vessels to ensure compliance with safety standards. Rule does not say a third party complaint regarding a safety violation requires controller prior approval to be lodged with authorities. Seized vessels that are unsafe or illegal can be ordered to be destroyed or rendered unusable, under the guidelines of Chief
-
- 33 CC-15934/2015 Controller. In view of the above, Last additional defence of the
accused that complaint filed without permission of Chief Controller and search and seizure conducted without following the due procedure of law by the accused are unsustainable.
24. The prosecution failed to prove that accused-dealer purchased the auto gas in-contravention of the license or Government order or permit governing the auto gas supply. Thereby, the offences punishable under Section 3 and 7 Essential Commodities Act are not made out. The prosecution also failed to prove that the accused dealer illegally importing, transferring, storing or blending auto gas in-contravention of the Act and thereby violated the safety rules. As such, the offences punishable under Section 23 of Petroleum Act, 1934 is not made out. Prosecution even failed to prove that M/s. ABN Auto Gas Bunk switches to a new supplier who does not have a valid authorization to sell the auto gas in that region and thereby, the offences punishable under Section 46 of Petroleum Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 is not made out. Further, prosecution failed to prove that accused dealer purchased auto gas from third party source to bypass an dealership agreement and he is also failed to
-
- 34 CC-15934/2015 maintain the daily accounts of purchase sale and storage of Auto LPG and thereby, violated the order. So, the offences punishable under Rule 3 and 7 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of UPSC in Motor Vehicle) order 2001 is not made out. There are no acceptable evidence pertaining to mis-utilization of the auto gas and forgery of special power of attorney and lease surrender deed, cheating and tampering with property mark with intent to cause injury. There are also no cogent evidence regarding creation of fake document i.e., lease surrender deed. Prosecution is failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused from the evidences brought on record. Hence, I record findings on Point No.1 to 6 in the NEGATIVE.
25. Point No.7:- For the reasons discussed in the Point No.1 to 6, I pass the following:
ORDER In exercise of power conferred under Section 248(1) of Cr. P.C. accused found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 468, 489 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC, Section 82 of Registration Act, Section 3 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Order 2001, Section 23 of Petroleum Act, 1934, Section 46 of Petroleum & Natural
-
- 35 CC-15934/2015 Gas regulatory Board Act, 2006 and Section 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused is extended for a period of 6 months in compliance of Section 437(A) of Cr. P.C. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of February 2026) (SOMANATHA) IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Complainant:-
Prosecution Name of witness Description
witness No.
PW1 Sri. Nitin Huilgol Complaint
PW2 Sri. Sachin Shivaji Bhanage Witness
PW3 Sri. Vinod Kumar Witness
PW4 Sri. Pradeep Patil Witness
PW5 Sri. Manjunath Prasad Report
PW5 Sri. Harish Mahazar Witness
PW6 Sri. Anil Kumar Mahazar Witness
PW7 Sri. Gunashekaran Witness
PW8 Sri. J.Williamas Mahazar Witness
PW9 Sri. Srinivas.T. Investigating Officer
- - CC-15934/2015
List of witnesses examined for Defense:-
- Nil -
List of Documents exhibited for Complainant :-
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by Ex.P1 Complaint PW1 Ex.P2 Panchanama PW1 Ex.P3-6 Photographs PW1 Ex.P7-12 Photographs PW1 Ex.P13-16 Service Reports PW1 Ex.P17 True copy of the Dealership PW1 Agreement Ex.P18 True copy of the PW1 Supplementary Dealership Agreement Ex.P19 True copy of Purchase PW1 Summary Ex.P20 True copy of Opening and PW1 closing stock report Ex.P21 True copy of Quantity PW1 illegally sourced and dispensed by dealer report Ex.P22 True copy of Dispatch details PW1 of LPG Ex.P23 True copy of Tax Invoice PW1 Ex.P24-89 True copy of Tax Invoices PW1 Ex.P90 Notarized copy of Dealership PW1 agreement Ex.P91 Notarized copy of PW1 Supplementary dealership agreement
-
- 37 CC-15934/2015
Ex.P92 Notarized copy of PW1
Memorandum of
Understanding
Ex.P93-96 Notarized copies of Service PW1
report for ALDS
Ex.P97 Notarized copy of Lease Deed PW1
Ex.P98 Certified copy of Surrender PW1
Lease Deed
Ex.P99 to Weighment Slips and PW1
Consignment Notes
262
Ex.P263 Photo copy of the Special PW1
Power of Attorney
Ex.P264 Letter dated 22.06.2015 PW7
Ex.P265 Additional complaint dated PW7
22.06.2015
Ex.P266 Mahazar PW7
Ex.P267 FIR PW9
Ex.P268 Letter dated 16.03.2015 PW9
Ex.P269 Letter dated 27.03.2015 PW9
Ex.P270 Letter dated 21.05.2015 PW9
Ex.P271 Letter dated 24.06.2015 PW9
Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:-
- Nil -
List of documents exhibited for Defense:-
- Nil - Digitally signed
by SOMANATHA
SOMANATHA Date: 2026.02.06
17:06:37 +0530
IV ACJM, Bengaluru.