How single RTI query toppled Rs 10.63 crore CBI case: Delhi court discharges accused in 15-year CBI case

“An RTI reply dated February 1 from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, as per which it is categorically stated that ‘Thinner and Reducer are industrial chemical products, which do not come under Essential Commodities’,” said the court on March 11.

The counsel for the accused said that an RTI was filed, seeking information as to “Whether Thinner and Reducer come under the Essential Commodities Act”. (Image enhanced using AI)

The court held that the prosecution’s case collapsed at the threshold, as it failed to establish that the very commodities in question were regulated under the EC Act.

RTI reply becomes turning point

• A decisive factor in the case was an RTI reply dated February 1, 2016, from the union ministry of consumer affairs, which clearly stated that thinner and reducer are industrial chemical products and do not fall under the EC Act.
• The court held that once this RTI document was produced, the burden shifted to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

• The prosecution “did not carry out” this exercise, the court observed, despite having the opportunity to rebut the clarification.
• While ordinarily defence documents are not considered at the stage of charge, the court invoked the exception for “documents of sterling quality,” especially where such material appears to have been ignored or withheld during investigation.

The court held that the prosecution’s case collapsed at the threshold, as it failed to establish that the very commodities in question were regulated under the EC Act. (Image enhanced using AI)

Foundational failure: EC Act not attracted

• The court identified a fundamental legal defect: the absence of any notification or statutory material showing that thinner and reducer are “essential commodities.”
• Without this, the entire prosecution under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the EC Act could not stand.

• “The very basis of alleging the commission of offences under EC Act… falls to the ground,” the court held.
• Even a clarification from the union ministry of petroleum and natural gas relied upon by the CBI only suggested that thinner and reducer may be derived from naptha.
• The court held that criminal liability cannot rest on such speculative possibilities.

Rs 10.63 crore trail: ‘Sales’ without supply

• At the centre of the case were statutory returns filed by the firm before the district supply officer, showing receipt of Rs 10,63,39,253.7 from M/s Rainbow Petrochemicals between April 2009 and March 2010.
• The prosecution alleged that these entries reflected purported sales of reducer and related materials.

• However, it simultaneously claimed that no actual supply was ever made, and that the transactions were fictitious and designed to mask diversion of petroleum products.
• The court noted the contradiction: the prosecution relied on these transactions to allege wrongdoing, but failed to substantiate either the supply of goods or the regulatory nature of the products.

Investigation ‘rife with gaps’

• The order delivers a strong indictment of the investigation, terming it “woefully inadequate” and “conspicuously silent” on key aspects.
• No recovery or seizure of naptha or related substances from the accused’s premises.
• No chemical or laboratory analysis to show that the products contained regulated petroleum derivatives.

• No evidence of conversion process linking naptha to thinner/reducer.
• No clarity on whether the goods fell under ‘Slop Order’ or ‘Naptha Order’.
• Contradictions in the status of the accused firm (partnership vs proprietorship).
• The court stressed that even at the stage of charge, the prosecution must present material that inspires confidence, something entirely lacking here.

Financial transactions don’t establish offence

• The CBI also relied on a network of bank accounts allegedly used to route funds as part of a conspiracy.
• However, the court held that even if these transactions were accepted at face value, they did not constitute an offence under the EC Act.
• This was because the prosecution failed to link the money trail to any illegal dealing in regulated commodities.

No ‘grave suspicion’, trial deemed futile

• Reiterating Supreme Court principles on framing of charges, the court underscored that cases must proceed only where there is “grave suspicion” based on material evidence not mere conjecture.
• In a key finding, the court held, “Even if the prosecution’s evidence is accepted in entirety, “the only possible conclusion is that the accused persons are not guilty.”
• Proceeding to trial in such circumstances, it added, would be “nothing but an exercise in futility.”

Defence submissions

• Advocate KK Sharma, appearing for the accused submitted that they deserve to be discharged on account of the defective and selective investigation conducted by CBI.
• The counsel said that both of them have been falsely implicated in the present case.
• Advocate Sharma said that an RTI was filed, seeking information as to “Whether Thinner and Reducer come under the Essential Commodities Act” and in reply to the same, the union ministry of consumer affairs, food and public distribution has categorically replied one February 1 with the list of essential commodities and also clarified that “Thinner and Reducer are industrial chemical products, which do not come under Essential Commodities”.

15-year delay, liberty concerns highlighted

• The court took note of the prolonged pendency of the case, instituted in 2011 and still at the stage of charge in 2026.
• Citing recent Supreme Court observations, it emphasised that trial courts must act as “filters” to prevent weak cases from clogging the system and infringing personal liberty.
• The accused, the court noted, had already suffered the burden of criminal proceedings for nearly 15 years without trial.

Final outcome

• The Delhi Court discharged Manish Kumar Aggarwal and his firm- M/s Reliable Industries from all charges under section 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC, section 3 read with Section 7 of the EC Act, Rule 3 of the Slop Order, 2000 and Rule 3 of the Naptha Order, 2000.

Rs 10 vs Rs 1,000: Why Rajasthan High Court struck down this university’s RTI Fee in student’s favour

• For thousands of students seeking transparency in their examination results, the Rajasthan High Court, earlier this month delivered a landmark relief and held that a university can no longer hide behind exorbitant ‘processing fees’ to deny access to answer sheets under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
• Its ruling comes in favour of a nursing student who failed in two subjects and applied for answer sheets from the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, only to be told to shell out Rs 1,000 as a processing fee for her request, as it called the university’s demand “arbitrary” and “not justified”.

• After analysing judgments passed on the issue at hand, Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhatti and Sandeep Shah said not an “iota of doubt” was left to hold that charging of the fee by the university “cannot be justified and the same is rather in direct violation of the RTI Act and the Rules of 2012”.

RTI privacy vs public results: Allahabad High Court

Earlier this month, the Allahabad High Court ruled that marks obtained by a candidate in a public examination are not confidential private information which may require the consent of the party whose marks have been sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

A bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi made the observation in a judgment passed on February 26 while dealing with a writ petition filed by the Union of India and officials of the diesel locomotive works, Varanasi.

“Marks obtained by a candidate, if information regarding that is sought by another candidate who has also participated in examination, is not such a confidential private information which may require even consent of that third party under Section 8. Well of course, if an outsider seeks information, department may take a valid defence of confidentiality,” the court noted.