Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 79 (MP)

Sudhir Satpathi v. State of M. P.

2012-01-17

M.C.GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT : Thisis petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing of the complaint lodged by the State Government through theInspector Legal Metrology against the petitioner for having committed offenceunder Sections 39 and 63 of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Enforcement)Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2.Perusal of the complaint goes to show that it has been filed against the AreaSales Manager of Hindustan Lever Ltd. The name of this accused petitioner doesnot appear in the complaint except in the cause title of the complaint. Thereis no specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner/accused wasin-charge and responsible for conduct of the business of the Company. It issubmitted that as per provisions of Section 74 of the Standards of Weights andMeasures Act, 1976 and Section 62 of Standards of Weights and Measures(Enforcement) Act, 1985, if any company alleged to have committed an offencethen the person, who was at the time of commission of the said offence, wasin-charge and was responsible for conduct of the business of the company forthe said offence. 3.However, according to the petitioner, a perusal of the complaint, copy whereofhas been filed, does not give any averment which may establish that petitionerwas in-charge and responsible for the affairs of the company in terms ofSection 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or under Section62 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. 4.It has been fairly conceded on behalf of learned Government Advocate appearingfor respondent/State that no notice which requires under Section 60 of the Actprior to filing of the complaint was given to the petitioner informing abouthis role in the entire episode. The aforesaid Section 60 reads as under : - "60.Presumption to be made in certain cases .- (1) If anyperson :- (a) makes or manufactures, or causes to be made ormanufactured, any false weight or measures, or (b) uses , or causes to be used, any false or unverifiedweight or measure in any transaction or for industrial production or forprotection, or (c)sells, distributes, delivers or otherwise transfers, or causes to be sold,distributed, delivered or otherwise transferred, any false of unverified weightor measure, Itshall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that he had done so with theknowledge that the weight or measure was a false or unverified weight ormeasure, as the case may be. (2)if any person has in his possession custody or control any false or unverifiedweight or measure in such circumstances as to indicate that such weight ormeasure is likely to he used in any transaction or for industrial production orfor protection, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that suchfalse or unverified weight or measure was possessed, held or control led bysuch person with the intention of using the same in any transaction or forindustrial production or for protection." 5.It is also important to take note of Section 65 of the aforesaid Act, whichreads as under : - "65.Compounding of' sentences.- (1) Any offence punishable under Section 39,Section 40, Section 41, Section 42, Section 44, Section 45, Section 46, Section47, Section 48, Section 51, Section 52, Section 54, or Section 59 or any rulemade under sub-section (3) of Section 72, may cither before or after theinstitution of the prosecution, be compounded by the Controller or such otherofficer as may be authorised in this behalf by theController, on payment, for credit to the State Government of such sum, as theController or such other officer may specify : Providedthat such sum shall not, in any case, exceed the maximum amount of the fine whichmay be imposed under this Act for the offence so compounded. (2)Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person who commits thesame or similar offence within a period of three years from the date on whichthe first offence, committed by him was compounded. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section, any second or subsequent offencecommitted after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on whichthe offence was previously compounded, shall be deemed to be a first offence. (3)Where an offence has been compounded under sub-section (J). no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may, shall be taken against theoffender, in respect of the offence so compounded, and the offender, if incustody, shall be discharged forthwith. (4)No offence punishable under this Act shall be compounded except as provided bythis section." 6.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence for which thepetitioner was sought to be prosecuted, a notice is required to be given to theaccused to give him an opportunity to compound the offence if he so wish beforefiling the complaint. The notice was given other accused personshas been filed on record. The notice was given other accused personshas been filed on record. This notice does not mention about the presentpetitioner having given such a notice. In these circumstances, when there areno averments made available in the body of the complaint regarding role of thepresent petitioner that he was in-charge and responsible for the conduct andaffairs of the company, the complaint filed against him was premature, as suchthe complaint cannot be allowed proceed further as prosecution against thepetitioner in the absence of essential pre-conditions for prosecuting him wouldbe abuse of process of law. 7.As such, the present petition is allowed. The complaint against the presentpetitioner filed by respondent under Sections 39 and 63 of the Act being Cri . Case No. 925 of 2001 pending in the Court of JudicialMagistrate First Class, Jaora is quashed. The bailbonds if furnished by the petitioner stands discharged. Acopy of this order be sent to the Court concernedalong with the record. C.C. as per rules.