Judgment :- The State represented by the Assistant Inspector of Labour, III Circle, Erode, has directed this appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Erode, acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under R. 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, read with S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules and the Act respectively) 2. According to the prosecution, while P.W. 1, the complainant in this case, inspected the Federal Bank Ltd., situate at Nethaji Road, Erode, on 22-1-1977, at about 11-95 a.m. the accused who was the then Manager of the said Bank, was found in possession of non-verified and un-stamped weights and measures in his bank, for the purpose of use in the business of the bank and thus committed the aforesaid offence. In the Bank, there were one B class beam scale last stamped in 1975, C quarter (M.O. 1) and Bullion weights of 200 gms., 100 gms., 50 gms. etc. (M.O. 2 series) last stamped in 1975; D quarter. P.W. 1 seized M.O. 1 and M.O. 2 series under the seizure list Ex. P. 1, and he also prepared an inspection report Ex. P. 2. He sent Ex. P. 3, show cause notice, to the accused, to which the accused sent his reply Ex. P. 5. As the reply given by the accused was not satisfactory, P.W. 1, after obtaining the sanction order Ex. P. 6, to prosecute the accused, filed the complaint. The accused contended that his Bank is not dealing in bullions and precious stones and therefore, he could not be mulcted with liability for the offence charged. The trial court finding that - "In so far as the weights and weighing instruments in the possession of the accused have not been found to be not in use for weighing the bullions and precious stones, they are not attracted by this rule and they having been verified lastly in 1975 third and fourth quarters, need be verified or stamped only during the third and fourth quarters of 1977. So, their having been not stamped or verified on 22-1-1977, does not involve any transgression of the provisions of the said Act" * and holding that the second Proviso to R. 10 of the Rules, which says that all weights and weighing instruments used or intended to be used in all business for trade other than those specified in sub-rule (1) shall be verified and stamped in accordance with the Act and Rules at least once in two years, would support the defence theory, concluded that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused of the offence complained of and accordingly acquitted him 3. The only contention that has been raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, relying upon the decision of this court in Public Prosecutor v. Javantheraj Calecha judgment of this court. D/- 18-8-1976 in Crl. No. 290 of 1969 rendered by Somasundaram J. is that the word 'bullion' would cover ornaments made of gold and silver and therefore, the weights and measures kept by the accused in his bank for the purpose of his business should have been verified once in a year and the contravention of the said condition would make the accused liable to be punished as charged 4. Thus, the only question that arises for my consideration is whether the ornaments and other articles of gold and silver could be regarded as bullion. If the answer is found in the affirmative, then the accused would be held to have contravened the provisions under the Rule, otherwise he would be entitled to an acquittal 5. In Viswanathan and Co. v. State of Madras, a Division Bench of this court held that the word 'bullion' used in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, includes all kinds of gold alloy of all grades of fineness suitable for the making of gold jewellery 6. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court, Deputy Commr. of Sales Tax v. G. S. Pai and Co., it has been held as follows: "The word 'bullion' must therefore, be interpreted according to ordinary parlance and must be given a meaning which people conversant with this commodity would ascribe to it. Now it is obvious that 'bullion' in the popular sense cannot include ornaments or other articles of gold. 'Bullion' according to its Plain ordinary meaning means gold or silver in the mass. Now it is obvious that 'bullion' in the popular sense cannot include ornaments or other articles of gold. 'Bullion' according to its Plain ordinary meaning means gold or silver in the mass. It connotes gold or silver regarded as raw material and it may be either in the form of raw gold or silver or ingots or bars of gold or silver. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of 'bullion' as 'gold or silver in the lump; also applied to coined or manufactured gold or silver considered as raw material'. So also in Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law and Wharton's Law Lexicon we find that the following meaning is given for the word 'bullion' 'uncoined gold and silver in the mass. These metals are called so, either when melted from the native ore and not perfectly refined, or where they are perfectly refined, but melted down into bars or ingots, or into any unwrought body, of any degree of fineness.' It would, therefore, be seen that ornaments and other articles of gold cannot be regarded as 'bullion, because even if old and antiquated, they are not raw or unwrought gold or gold in the mass, but they represent manufactured or finished products of gold. Nor do they come within the meaning of the expression 'specie'." * From the above decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that ornaments and other articles of gold or silver cannot be regarded as bullion, because they are not raw or unwrought cold or silver or gold or silver in the mass, but they represent manufactured or finished products of gold or silver, as the case may be 7. In the light of the above of the Supreme Court, the judgment rendered by Somasundaram, J. in Javantheraj Calecha's case Cri. No. 290 of 1969. D/- 18-8-1976 cannot hold good 8. Rule, 10(1) of the Rules reads that all weights and measures and weighing instruments used or intended to be used in transactions for trade, business or commerce in bullion or precious stones shall be verified and stamped in accordance with the rules at least in every twelve months. The second proviso to R. 10 states that the verification and stamping have to be done at least once in two years. The second proviso to R. 10 states that the verification and stamping have to be done at least once in two years. If the weights and weighing instruments are used in all, business or trade other than those specified in sub-rule (1), it is not the case of the prosecution that M.O. 1 and M.O. 2 series were used by the accused in transactions in bullion or precious stones. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the prosecution has not made out the charge against the accused. Consequently, the order of acquittal passed by the court below has to be upheld, though not for the reasons assigned by it for the said conclusion 9. In the result missed, the appeal is dismissed.