Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.15 seconds)Section 5 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mahamaya Service Centre vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others on 9 September, 2010
5. Mr. R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the sampling test were not carried out, as per the laid down procedure of the company i.e. Indian Oil Corporation. He also relied on the decision in Mahamaya Service Centre Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others in Writ Petition No.1668 of 2009 of High Court of Chatisgarh at Bilaspur and contended that whenever deficiencies in the testing procedure is found, the Honourable court has intervened and setaside such reports by quashing the same. The facts of the case referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are very much different from the present case. The petitioners had stated that the sampling of the product was in accordance with Section 5 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998, which empowers to take 2 samples of one litre each of High Speed Diesel. According to him, this procedure was not followed in the instant case. It is pertinent to point out that the accused had never pointed out at any point of time about this alleged lapse and therefore, it appears only to be an after thought. It is not also mentioned in any part of the report that a lesser quantity was taken as sample for the sake of testing and there has been a time gap of more than a month, between the routine inspection and the date of transporting 4000 litres of adulterated petrol back to Korukupet terminal. Even assuming that there was a lapse on the part of the Indian Oil Corporation officials in doing the testing as per the laid down procedure, it could have been brought to their knowledge by way of a letter during this period. In the absence of any such correspondence, it can be concluded that the alleged lapse mentioned by the petitioners is only an after thought and cannot be accepted as a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against them.
1