Absence of Statutory Violation—No Offence Attracted Under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955—Unauthorized Raid by Vigilance Squad Rendered FIR Unsustainable

Unauthorized investigation cannot sustain criminal proceedings – Any search and seizure under the LPG Order must be backed by legal authorization. (Para 11) No statutory restriction, no offence – BPCL, as a government oil company, was not subject to storage limitations applicable to distributors. (Para 10) Absence of complainant negates allegations – Without a formal complaint from HPCL, no offence regarding alleged illegal refilling was established. (Para 12)

The court held that no offence was made out against the BPCL officials under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, or the LPG Distribution Order, 2000, as the law did not impose storage restrictions on BPCL. (Para 10) The State Level Vigilance Squad lacked legal authority under Rule 13 of the LPG Order to conduct the raid without proper authorization. (Para 11) In the absence of a complaint from HPCL regarding alleged illegal refilling, no cognizable offence was disclosed. (Para 12) The court found the FIR to be an abuse of process of law and quashed it under its inherent powers. (Para 13)

Final Order

Writ Petition Allowed—FIR No. 3027 of 2012 Quashed and Set Aside (Para 13)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482
• Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Sections 3, 7, 8, 9, 10
• Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 – Clause 3(4), Rule 13

Subjects:

Quashing of FIR – BPCL Officials – Essential Commodities Act Violation – Unauthorized Raid – No Offence Attracted – Lack of Jurisdiction – Abuse of Process of Law – LPG Distribution Order – Public Distribution System – Vigilance Squad

Facts:

a. Nature of Litigation – The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
b. Petitioners’ Relief Sought – The petitioners, senior officials of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), challenged the registration of FIR No. 3027 of 2012 for alleged excess storage of LPG cylinders and illegal refilling of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) cylinders.
c. Reason for Filing the Case – The FIR was lodged following a raid by a State Level Vigilance Squad, which claimed that BPCL was storing 8,655 more LPG cylinders than the recorded inventory, along with HPCL cylinders allegedly being refilled unlawfully.
d. Previous Orders – On 22nd July 2014, the court issued Rule in the writ petition and granted interim relief, restraining the investigating agency from filing a charge sheet.

Issues:

1. Whether the BPCL officials could be held liable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000.
2. Whether the State Level Vigilance Squad had the legal authority to conduct the raid and initiate criminal proceedings against BPCL officials.
3. Whether the FIR was sustainable in the absence of a complaint from HPCL regarding the alleged illegal refilling of its cylinders.

Submissions/Arguments:

a. Petitioners’ Arguments

• BPCL, being a government oil company, was not subject to the same storage restrictions as distributors under the LPG Distribution Order, 2000.
• The raid was unauthorized, as Rule 13 of the LPG Order permitted only officers not below the rank of Inspector, duly authorized by the government, to conduct searches and seizures.
• The FIR was filed without legal basis, as the order did not impose a storage limit on BPCL.
• HPCL never filed a complaint regarding illegal refilling, making the allegation baseless.

b. State’s Arguments

• The FIR was based on prima facie evidence of excess storage and unlawful refilling of HPCL cylinders.
• The raid was conducted in the interest of public distribution system compliance.