7 min readNew DelhiMar 19, 2026 07:23 PM ISTA decisive factor in the case was an RTI reply dated February 1, 2016. (Image generated using AI)RTI news: A Delhi court has discharged a businessman and his firm in a CBI case alleging illegal petroleum diversion, after finding that over Rs 10.63 crore shown as sales existed only on paper and that a key RTI reply excluding “thinner” and “reducer” from the Essential Commodities Act (EC Act) went unchallenged by the prosecution.Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari of the Rouse Avenue Courts was hearing the matter at the stage of consideration of charge, where it had to decide whether a prima facie case existed to proceed to trial against one Manish Kumar Aggarwal and his firm M/s Reliable Industries.“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 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 pointA 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 document was produced, the burden shifted to the prosecution to prove otherwise.Also Read | Liquor policy ‘scam’: ED raises concern in Delhi HC that trial court remarks could affect PMLA appellate tribunal proceedingsThe 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.Foundational failure: EC Act not attractedThe 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.Also Read | Excise policy case: Arvind Kejriwal moves SC as Delhi HC refuses to transfer CBI appeal to another bench“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. Court Slams CBI Probe as "Woefully Inadequate" — 5 Critical Failures That Sank the CaseWhat the CBI Failed to EstablishThe Personal Cost — 15 Years Under Criminal CloudExpress InfoGenIE Rs 10.63 crore trail: ‘Sales’ without supplyAt 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.Also Read | Excise Policy Case: Why Delhi court slammed CBI over approver statements while discharging Arvind Kejriwal and othersHowever, 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.Also Read | Act against probe officer who investigated Delhi excise policy case, need to fix accountability: Judge to CBINo 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 offenceThe 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 futileReiterating 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 submissionsAdvocate 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 highlightedThe 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 outcomeThe 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, 2000Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdAdvertisementLoading Recommendations...Live BlogUS-Israel-Iran War News Live Updates: Hegseth vows to ‘finish’ Iran war, says ‘Today will be largest strike package on Tehran’4 minutes agoNews Today Live Updates, 19 March | Chilling video: The moment a missile struck metres away from RT journalist in Lebanon7 minutes agoEid ul-Fitr 2026 Moon Sighting Date, Timing LIVE: Indonesia sets March 21, Saudi Arabia, UAE eye March 20; when will India celebrate?8 minutes agoDubai, Abu Dhabi News Live Updates: Global fuel prices soar as Iran hits back at multiple Gulf refineries10 minutes agoDhurandhar 2 Movie Review Live Updates: Fans heap praise on Ranveer Singh, says ‘He is truly in a league of his own’19 minutes ago