9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Revision against the order dismissing the complaint and upholding the proceedings. 2. Allegations of possession of kerosene oil without a license. 3. Interpretation of Section 7 of the Petroleum Act, 1934, and the U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962. 4. Applicability of the Petroleum Act over the U.P. Kerosene Control Order. 5. Decision on dropping the proceedings and discharging the applicant. Analysis: 1. The applicant filed a revision against the order of the Civil and Sessions Judge dismissing the complaint and upholding the proceedings initiated by the State regarding the allegation of supplying diesel oil mixed with kerosene oil to vehicles meant for election duty. The learned Magistrate had found discrepancies in the evidence and had given the benefit of doubt to the applicant in the earlier case, leading to an acquittal. Subsequently, another case was filed regarding the possession of kerosene oil without a license, which was challenged in the revision on the grounds of unnecessary harassment to the applicant. 2. The second case against the applicant involved allegations of possessing ten drums of kerosene oil without a license. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision against this charge citing Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which raises the question of whether the possession of kerosene oil without a license is a valid charge against the applicant. 3. The crux of the argument presented by the applicant's counsel was centered around the interpretation of Section 7 of the Petroleum Act, 1934, which exempts the requirement of a license for the transport or storage of non-dangerous petroleum under certain conditions. The applicant argued that the quantity of kerosene oil found did not exceed the limit specified in the Act, hence no license was required. The definitions of 'kerosene' under the U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962, and 'petroleum' under the Petroleum Act were crucial in determining the applicability of licensing requirements. 4. The judgment delved into the interplay between the Petroleum Act and the U.P. Kerosene Control Order, emphasizing that the Petroleum Act being a Central Act would prevail over the Order issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The court analyzed the definitions of 'petroleum' and 'kerosene' to establish that the applicant did not breach any licensing requirements under Section 7 of the Petroleum Act, given the quantity and nature of the substance found in his possession. 5. Ultimately, the court concluded that pursuing the case against the applicant for possessing kerosene oil without a license would amount to unnecessary harassment, especially considering the previous acquittal in a related matter. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the proceedings were dropped, and the applicant was discharged, bringing an end to the legal proceedings against him.
|
