- (1.) An FIR as Case Crime No.141/2015, under Sections 379/411 IPC and 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, came to be lodged against the applicant on 7.4.2015, alleging that on a raid conducted by O.P. No.2 at the commercial site of the applicant, 4 tankers bearing registration no. HR 38G 9294, UP 82A 9687, UP 14E 9076 and UP 86B 9842, were in all found to contain 46000 litres of kerosene, meant for public distribution system and as the applicant failed to show any requisite authorization to possess kerosene oil, the said tankers along with kerosene oil were seized, a recovery memo prepared after carrying out requisite formalities. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant on 1.6.2015 under the aforesaid offences and cognizance taken. During the pendency of the case, an FSL report dated 25.8.2015 has been received indicating adulteration in the kerosene oil. The applicant filed an application before the court below, directing the I.O. concerned to take a fresh sample of kerosene from the 4 tankers for its re-analysis, which has been rejected under the impugned order dated 22.9.2015.
(2.) Heard Sri Ankit Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant fairly submits that even though neither under the relevant control order nor under the Code, there exists any indefeasible right of the applicant to insist for re-analysis of a seized sample, yet an application for re-analysis could be allowed as the said report would be a credible material either to claim discharge or by way of defence. He relies upon a judgement of the Apex Court in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC(Cri) 415 and that of a Division Bench of this Court in Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of U.P.& Ors.,1998 JIC 781.;