JUDGMENT : The question posed before the Court in this writ petition is whether an Inspector of Police in the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB for short) can appropriate to himself the powers available to a Legal Metrology Officer under the provisions of the Legal Metrology 2009 Act and Rules framed thereunder, and proceed to initiate action for alleged violation of the 2009 Act and Rules. 2. Heard Sri T. Asaf Ali on behalf of the petitioners, Smt.Rashmi K.M., Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, 7 and 10, Sri Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel on behalf of the 6th respondent, Sri P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the 8th respondent and Sri K.N.Abhilash, learned counsel on behalf of the 9th respondent. 3. The 1st petitioner is a partnership firm and the 2nd petitioner is its Managing Partner. The firm is engaged in the activity W.P.(C)No. 35821/19 4 of bottling LPG cylinders on the basis of licence issued by the 9th respondent Panchayat. According to the petitioners, the business is being carried out with all necessary licenses issued by different statutory authorities and copies of the same have been produced along with the writ petition. The petitioners have entered into agreement with the 6th respondent for bottling assistance and the copy of the latest agreement has been produced as Ext.P10. The officials of the 6th respondent conduct periodical inspection to ensure that the petitioner is carrying on the work in accordance with the requirements under the agreement and the licenses issued by various authorities. Reports are generated by the 6th respondent on the basis of inspection and the report dated 30.11.2019 has been produced as Ext.P12. As per clause 12 of Ext.P10 agreement, it is the duty of the firm to fill LPG into empty cylinders conforming to ISI 3258. The net weight of the cylinder has been fixed at 14.2 KGs. 4. The Central Government who has been arrayed as the 8th respondent in the writ petition, had brought out the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 2009 Act) and had also promulgated Rules for the purpose of carrying on the purposes of the Act. The net weight of the cylinder has been fixed at 14.2 KGs. 4. The Central Government who has been arrayed as the 8th respondent in the writ petition, had brought out the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 2009 Act) and had also promulgated Rules for the purpose of carrying on the purposes of the Act. The purpose of the 2009 Act is to establish and enforce standards of weights and measures, regulate trade and commerce in weights, measures and other goods which are sold or distributed by W.P.(C)No. 35821/19 5 weight, measure or number and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Earlier, the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 were the enactments in force and the new Act intended to combine the provisions of the said enactments. Section 2(h) of the 2009 Act defines the word 'Legal Metrology Officer' to mean Additional Director, Additional Controller, Joint Director, Joint Controller, Deputy Director, Deputy Controller, Assistant Director, Assistant Controller and Inspector appointed under Sections 13 and 14 of the 2009 Act. Section 13 (2) says that the qualifications of the Legal Metrology Officer shall be as may be prescribed. Chapter V of the 2009 Act specifies the offences and penalties under the 2009 Act, the manner in which offences can be compounded and also provides for appeals from various orders. Section 15 of the 2009 Act empowers the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer to inspect a premises and seize any weight or measure or goods in relation to which any trade and commerce has taken place or is intended to take place and in respect of which an offence punishable under the 2009 Act appears to have been or is likely to be committed. Section 51 of the 2009 Act specifically provides that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Section 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 insofar as such W.P.(C)No. 35821/19 6 provisions relate to offences with regard to weight or measure, shall not apply to any offence which is punishable under the 2009 Act. Section 51 of the 2009 Act specifically provides that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Section 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 insofar as such W.P.(C)No. 35821/19 6 provisions relate to offences with regard to weight or measure, shall not apply to any offence which is punishable under the 2009 Act. It is significant that Section 153 of the Code is a specific provision which authorises an officer in charge of a police station to enter any place within the limits of such station without warrant, for the purpose of inspecting or searching for any weights or measures or instruments for weighing, used or kept therein, whenever he has reason to believe that there are in such place any weights, measures or instruments for weighing which are false. It can thus be seen that the power available is to conduct a search regarding the weight or instrument used for weighing and not for inspecting a packaged commodity. Even the above said authority has been taken away by Section 51 of the 2009 Act, insofar as it relates to an offence under the Act. The Central Government thereafter promulgated the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011 which came into force with effect from 01.04.2011. Rule 28 of the Rules lay down the qualifications of a Legal Metrology Officer and it reads thus; “28. Qualifications of Legal Metrology Officer. -(1) No person shall be appointed as Legal Metrology Officer unless he - (a) is a graduate of a recognized university in Science (with physics as one of the subjects), technology or engineering or holds a recognized diploma in engineering with three years professional experience; and (b) is able to speak, read and write the regional language of the State. (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to officials who have been working as Legal Metrology Officer are also eligible for promotion to the next higher grade of Legal Metrology Officer on the date of commencement of these rules. (3) The person appointed to the post of Legal Metrology Officer shall have to successfully complete the basic training course at the Indian Institute of Legal Metrology, Ranchi before his posting. (4) The Central Government may, in consideration of the practical difficulties faced by the State Government and on its recommendation, relax the qualification specified in sub-rule (1) for the post of legal Metrology Officers for that State.” 5. (4) The Central Government may, in consideration of the practical difficulties faced by the State Government and on its recommendation, relax the qualification specified in sub-rule (1) for the post of legal Metrology Officers for that State.” 5. It can be seen that the duties of the Legal Metrology Officer require the incumbent to possess sufficient knowledge in scientific and technological aspects. The qualifications as well as the basic training course at the Indian Institute of Legal Metrology, Ranchi are expected to equip the Officer with the necessary knowledge required for implementing the purposes of the 2009 Act. 6. The Central Government has promulgated the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which inter alia lays down the standards and the requirements which are to be met by persons dealing with commodities in packaged form. Liquified Petroleum Gas is one such commodity which comes under the purview of the 2009 Act and the Rules. Rule 19 of the above said Rules provides for inspection of quantity and error in packages at the premises of the manufacturer or packer. The Rule reads thus; “19. Inspection of quantity and error in packages at the premises of the manufacturer or packer.— (1) With a view to ascertaining whether any package or lot of packages complies with provisions of these rules in all respects, the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer empowered to inspect under section 15 of the Act (hereafter referred to in these rules as the “authorized person”) may examine the packages and carry out the tests at the premises of the manufacturer or where the manufacturer is not the packer, of the packer and when he carries out such examination or tests, he shall draw samples from such lot of packages, in such manner and in such number as are specified in the Fifth Schedule and the tests aforesaid shall be carried out in accordance with the method specified in the Sixth Schedule. (2) The Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer shall enter in the Form set out in the Seventh Schedule, the detailed results of the tests carried out by him under sub-rule (1) and shall obtain, on the said Form, the signature of the manufacturer or, as the case may be, of the packer, or his authorized agent, or, in the absence of both, or on their refusal to affix such signature, the signature of a competent witness and copy of the data sheet containing the result shall be given to the manufacturer or packer, as the case may be. (3) On the completion of the examination and tests carried out under sub-rule (1), the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer shall make a report indicating therein his findings with regard to the declarations required to be made under these rules and as to the net quantity actually contained in the sample packages and the extent of error, if any, noticed by him and furnish a copy of such report to the manufacturer or the packer, as the case may be. (4) If it appears from the report referred to in sub-rule (3) that- (a) the corrected average of the net quantity contained in the packages drawn as samples is lesser than the quantity declared on the packages or on the labels affixed thereto; or (b) the number of packages that show an error in deficiency exceeding the maximum permissible error is greater than that shown in column 4 of Table under Fifth Schedule; or (c) any such package shows an error in deficiency exceeding twice the maximum permissible error; (d) the Director, Controller or the Legal Metrology Officer shall require the manufacturer or packer to make a cent per cent check of the packages contained in the lot and authorise sale, distribution or delivery of only such packages with error in deficiency in the net quantity less than the maximum permissible error and the remaining packages shall be allowed to be sold distributed or delivered by the manufacturer or packer after it has been repacked or relabeled, as the case may be, so as to comply with the provisions of the Act and these rules. (5) Omitted (6) A lot of packages shall be approved for sale if, as a result of the tests carried out under this rule, it is found that (a) the corrected average net quantity of the sample packages is equal to, or more than the declared net quantity; (b) the number of packages that show an error in deficiency exceeding the maximum permissible error is not more than that shown in column 4 of the Table under Fifth Schedule; (c) no package shows an error in deficiency exceeding twice the maximum permissible error; (d) every package bears thereon or on a label affixed thereto the declarations required to be made under these rules. (7) The requirement of mandatory declarations on packages shall be ensured at the factory level and at the depot of the factory. (8) For non-compliance of the provisions of this rule, action may be taken after seizing five representative samples of the packages as evidence and the rest of the packages may be released only after compliance is completed by the manufacturer or the packer, as the case may be.” 7. The Rule contemplates detailed procedure to be followed by the Legal Metrology Officer while conducting an inspection. Rule 20 deals with the action to be taken on completion of the inspection. As earlier stated, the Rules also deal with offences for contravention of the provisions of the Rules and the punishments for such contravention. 8. Ext.P10 agreement between the parties specifies the required weight of a cylinder filled with LPG and the permissible variation. Clause 12(a) of Ext.P10 agreement reads thus; “12. Filling of LPG cylinders. (a).'Licensee' shall fill into good and usable empty cylinders conforming to IS-13258 at “the LPG Bottling Plant” to the extent of the capacity of each such LPG cylinder. The weight of the LPG contained in a cylinder shall not vary by a difference of ±50 gms and –NIL of the net weight of the cylinder i.e. 14.2 Kg as indicated on its and as specified by the norms of W&M/Legal Metrology Department. The permissible weight variation in various categories of cylinders shall be in line with W&M/Legal Metrology Department or OISD-STD-169/169A, whichever is less. 9. The Packaged Commodities Rules prescribes the permissible errors on net quantity declared by weight or volume. The permissible weight variation in various categories of cylinders shall be in line with W&M/Legal Metrology Department or OISD-STD-169/169A, whichever is less. 9. The Packaged Commodities Rules prescribes the permissible errors on net quantity declared by weight or volume. As per Table 1 of the 1st schedule of the Rules, in the case of a commodity weighing between to 10000 to 50000 grams, the permissible error is shown to be 150 grams. The LPG cylinders required to have a weight of 14.2 Kg. comes within the said parameters. 10. It can thus be seen that the activity in which the petitioners are engaged is governed by provisions of a Central enactment, which clearly specifies the authorities who can take action for violation of the provisions. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the law is very clear regarding the powers which have been entrusted with the Legal Metrology Officer, the 4th respondent has usurped such powers and proceeded to inspect the W.P.(C)No. 35821/19 12 petitioners' unit on 21.5.2019, by naming the said inspection as a 'surprise check'. The 4th respondent proceeded to submit a report to the 3rd respondent stating that on inspection it was found that 35 cylinders out of 125 cylinders which had been filled were found to be having lesser weight than required. The report dated 24.05.2019 has been produced as Ext.P13. On receipt of the above report, the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P14 which is a forwarding endorsement in which he has recommended cancellation of the agreement between the 6th respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and the petitioners. On receipt of Ext.P14, the 2nd respondent Director of VACB wrote Ext.P15 letter to the Additional Chief Secretary, Intelligence Department stating that he is in agreement with the recommendations made by the Inspecting Officer and the Police Superintendent. On receipt of Ext.P15, the Secretary to Government has issued Ext.P16 to the Territory Manager of BPCL requesting to take immediate action on the recommendations. This was followed by Ext.P17 letter from the 6th respondent to the petitioners asking them to show cause why action should not be taken against the petitioners' bottling plant. On receipt of Ext.P15, the Secretary to Government has issued Ext.P16 to the Territory Manager of BPCL requesting to take immediate action on the recommendations. This was followed by Ext.P17 letter from the 6th respondent to the petitioners asking them to show cause why action should not be taken against the petitioners' bottling plant. The writ petition has been filed praying to quash Exts.P13 to P16 issued by respondent Nos.4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively and for a direction to respondents 1, 6 and 7 not proceed against the petitioners on the basis of the above W.P.(C)No. 35821/19 13 orders. There is also a prayer for a declaration that the respondents 3 and 4 have no authority to exercise powers on the basis of alleged contravention of the provisions of the 2009 Act. 11. Sri T.Asaf Ali appearing for the petitioners referred to the provisions of the 2009 Act and the several Rules thereunder and contended that the only Officers who can take action for violation of the provisions of the said 2009 Act and Rules are the Legal Metrology Officers and that Police Officers have absolutely no authority to initiate action with regard to such offences. The counsel further contended that when there is a specific law containing specific provisions regarding offences and naming the authorities who can take actions, the Police Officers have absolutely no role and the provisions of Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code will come into play. He relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtas v. State of Haryana and another reported in [ AIR 1979 SC 1839 ], Union of India V. Ashok Kumar Sharma reported in [ AIR 2020 SC 5274 ] and the decision of a Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Baldeo and ors. v. Emperor reported in [AIR 1940 Allahabad 263] and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. S.A.Neyazi reported in [1998 KHC 3077]. 12. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, W.P.(C)No. 35821/19 14 provides that nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. In Rohtas (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 5 of the Code carves out a clear exception to the provisions of the trial of an offence under any special or local law or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. There can be no dispute that the offence sought to be investigated/inspected by the police is one coming under the provisions of the 2009 Act, which is a special law and regarding which there is a special form of procedure prescribed. 13. Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) is a case in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered facts very much similar to the one in the case on hand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the cognizance of offence under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, vis-a-vis the powers of a Police Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that the Police Officer cannot submit a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in regard to an offence under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In the case on hand. This Court is concerned with the power of a Police W.P.(C)No. 35821/19 15 Officer to submit a report regarding an offence allegedly under the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act. As already stated earlier, Section 51 of the 2009 Act specifically takes away the power available to the police officer under Section 153 of the Code insofar as it relates to an offence under the Act, so also the power available under the Indian Penal Code. Going by the reports of the Police Officer, what is detected relates to difference in weight of a packaged commodity, which clearly falls under the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. A meek attempt is made in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent to justify the action by stating that the petitioner which is a partnership firm engaged in business, comes under the definition of a “public servant” under Section 2(c) (i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that the petitioner is a public institution involved in filling of gas supplied by another public institution, the BPCL. Apparently, the respondents are very much aware of the legal position since, no further proceedings have been taken under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Apparently, the respondents are very much aware of the legal position since, no further proceedings have been taken under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A recommendation to a Petroleum company to cancel one of its agencies can never be understood as an action under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 14. It can be seen from the provisions of the 2009 Act and Rules which have been extracted above, that the provisions are W.P.(C)No. 35821/19 16 comparable to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which were considered in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra). The qualifications of the Legal Metrology Officer and the functions enumerated clearly show that the officer is specially trained to investigate into offences under the Act. The 2009 Act also prescribes a special procedure that has to be followed while conducting the inspection. A police officer is not specially trained to investigate into offences under the 2009 Act. Nor is he the person authorised by law to initiate action for contravention with the provisions of the 2009 Act and Rules. In the case on hand, the procedure prescribed under the 2009 Act and the Rules made thereunder, has also not been followed. The actions of the respondents are hence without any authority in law and are liable to be quashed. It is unfortunate that either out of ignorance or on pretended ignorance of law, Police officers are exercising powers which are not available to them and such actions get condoned; the only consequence being an undoing of the wrong by the Court in a certiorari action. The fact that the police officers do not enjoy any immunity from law for their actions which are per se without any authority in law, appears to have been comfortably forgotten. 15. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P13 report of the 4th respondent and the consequential orders Exts.P14, P15 and P16 W.P.(C)No. 35821/19 17 issued by the respondents 3, 2 and 5 respectively, are quashed as they are without any authority in law. It is declared that the Police Officers have no authority to deal with a complaint relating to an offence under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Ext.P17 notice which has been issued by the 6th respondent based on Exts.P13 to P16 is also set aside and the 6th respondent is directed not to take any action on the basis of Exts.P13 to P16. Ext.P17 notice which has been issued by the 6th respondent based on Exts.P13 to P16 is also set aside and the 6th respondent is directed not to take any action on the basis of Exts.P13 to P16. Needless to say that no action in furtherence of Exts.P13 to P16 shall be taken by any of the respondents. The parties will bear their respective costs.