Fake Kerosene Allotment Racket: Jammu Kashmir High Court Upholds Charges Against CAPD Officials | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has dismissed two connected petitions challenging the framing of charges in an alleged fake kerosene allotment racket, holding that the material on record discloses a prima facie case and raises “grave suspicion” warranting trial.

The judgment was reserved on March 12, 2026, and pronounced on April 1, 2026, by Justice Sanjay Parihar in CRMC No. 67/2013 and CRMC No. 15/2013, arising out of FIR No. 31/2006 registered at Police Station Peer Mitha, Jammu.

The petitions were filed by Kali Dass and others, including Swaran Singh and Bal Krishan Sharma, who were represented by a battery of lawyers led by Senior Advocate OP Thakur along with RKS Thakur and Anandita Thakur in one matter, and Senior Advocate Aseem Kumar Sawhney, appearing through virtual mode, along with Tehseena Bukhari, Sarfaraz Ahmed, Piyush Behal, Dheeraj Singh and Harsh Singh in the connected case. The State was represented by Deputy Advocate General P D Singh.

The petitioners had challenged an order dated December 15, 2012, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby they were discharged of offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code but directed to face trial under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 120-B RPC along with Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The case traces back to 2006 when Police Station Satwari registered FIR No. 91/2006 after a raid at the premises of Gurmeet Singh, a kerosene dealer, led to recovery of 600 litres of kerosene oil, allegedly in excess of his allotted quota. During investigation, the oil was found to have been released on the basis of an allotment order dated May 16, 2006, which was suspected to be forged.

Subsequently, a larger racket involving fake allotment orders surfaced, leading to registration of FIR No. 31/2006 at Police Station Peer Mitha. Investigations revealed that forged allotment orders were allegedly prepared and used in connivance with officials of the Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department to secure kerosene oil, which was then diverted to the black market.

The prosecution alleged that employees of the stockist firm M/S Devi Dass Gopal Krishan and private individuals, including Keshav Sawhney and Rattan Lal, were involved in preparing and circulating forged allotment orders. Statements recorded during investigation indicated that such documents were typed at a private establishment and presented for verification before departmental officials.

One of the key witnesses, Omesh Sharma, an employee of the stockist firm, stated that a suspicious allotment order was shown to Kali Dass and Swaran Singh, who allegedly confirmed its genuineness, leading to release of kerosene oil. The prosecution relied on such material to argue that departmental officials facilitated the use of forged documents.

Challenging the charges, the petitioners argued that they had been falsely implicated without any direct evidence of preparing forged allotment orders. They contended that statements of co-accused recorded under Section 161 CrPC were not admissible as substantive evidence and that the alleged allotment order formed part of a different FIR registered at Police Station Satwari.

It was also argued that mere employment in the CAPD Department could not attract criminal liability in the absence of concrete material showing active involvement in forgery or conspiracy. The petitioners further claimed that the second FIR was barred in law as it related to the same transaction.

Opposing the petitions, the State submitted that the material collected during investigation established prima facie involvement of the petitioners in a broader conspiracy involving preparation, verification and use of fake allotment orders. It was argued that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to examine whether a strong suspicion exists, not to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence.

Rejecting the petitions, the High Court held that the argument of “not an iota of evidence” was an overstatement and noted that the seizure of multiple allotment orders and forensic indication of forgery pointed to a systematic modus operandi.

Referring to settled legal principles, the Court observed, “The test is whether the material placed on record, if taken at its face value, discloses the existence of a prima facie case or at least raises a grave suspicion against the accused.”

The Court further held that statements of witnesses indicating verification of forged documents by departmental officials, coupled with evidence of repeated use of such documents, were sufficient at this stage to proceed to trial.

On the issue of multiple FIRs, the Court ruled that FIR No. 31/2006 pertained to a larger conspiracy distinct from the specific incident covered under FIR No. 91/2006, and therefore was legally maintainable.

Dismissing the reliance on co-accused statements alone, the Court clarified that the prosecution case was supported by additional material, including witness statements and documentary evidence, which cumulatively raised grave suspicion.

“The material on record, taken at its face value, discloses a prima facie case and raises grave suspicion against the petitioners,” the Court held, adding that admissibility and evidentiary value would be tested during trial.

With these observations, the High Court dismissed both petitions and vacated interim directions, allowing the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.