JUDGMENT : This petition was heard and judgment was reserved on 03.10.2023. 2. This matter has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of G.O. No.159/ 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 19.08.2014 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. 3. The offence report was filed alleging therein that the petitioners herein have obstructed government work and used uncalibrated and unrecognized measure and also found holding secondary standard measure. It is further alleged that they were found locking the pump after inspecting the pump and was found working beyond their power and authority and it is further alleged that they were illegally using the power of weight and measure. The seizure list prepared on 16.07.2014 which is part of the offence report states that the petitioners were found checking the pump by using 5-litre measure and further found closing the closed pump. It is stated that under section 15(1) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, the petitioners have no power to check the pump and therefore they have violated the provisions and have committed offence. 4. Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance by order dated 19.08.2014 under section 33 and 40 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Rule 25 of the Jharkhand Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rule, 2011 and Rule 27 and 30 of Legal Metrology (National Standards) Rules, 2011 against the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He submitted that the petitioners have never violated any such provisions under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the rules made thereunder. He submitted that the petitioners are the officials of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited[BPCL] which is a Public Sector Oil Company engaged in refining of crude oil and marketing of various petroleum products, such as petrol/ Motor Spirit(MS), Diesel (HSD), Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), ATF, Naphtha, LDO, SKO, Lubricants etc. M/s BPCL purchases/takes on lease the land for construction of retail outlets and installs Pumps and Tanks, canopy etc. on such land at its costs for establishment of its retain petroleum outlets to sell its petroleum products, which are covered under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. M/s BPCL purchases/takes on lease the land for construction of retail outlets and installs Pumps and Tanks, canopy etc. on such land at its costs for establishment of its retain petroleum outlets to sell its petroleum products, which are covered under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He submitted that for that an agreement was being made between the company and the out-let and the terms and conditions are prescribed under the said dealership agreement and clause-10(o) provides power to investigate the petrol pumps by the officials of the company. He further submitted that after closure of Anti Adulteration Cell, Government of India, through its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas issued official direction/ guidelines vide letter No.P-21027/15/2004 dated 06.10.2004 directing the public sector undertaking (PSU) Oil Companies to create a Quality Control Wing and primary responsibility and accountability for the quality and quantity of petroleum products sold through their network. In view of that, the B.P.C.L also established their own Quality Control Wing and the petitioners herein are the officers of the quality control cell (wing) of the said company. He further submitted that Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 vide order dated 19.12.2005, amended the old Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation and Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998, and replaced the same with new one which is known as Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005. He further submitted that section 2(f) of the said Order, 2005, defines “Malpractice” which includes short delivery. He further submitted that section 7 of the said Order, 2005 empowers any officer of the Oil company, not below the rank of Sales Officer to enter and search any place of out-let to inspect and to check of any malpractices including short delivery of product. He referred to section 24 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and submitted that verification and stamping of weight or measure is prescribed therein. He submitted that the allegations are that 5 litre of oil conical was seized by the Legal Metrology Department, Government of Jharkhand and for verification of that, request was made to the Controller of Legal Metrology, Jharkhand in light of Section 24. He submitted that the allegations are that 5 litre of oil conical was seized by the Legal Metrology Department, Government of Jharkhand and for verification of that, request was made to the Controller of Legal Metrology, Jharkhand in light of Section 24. However, request was not met with inspite of repeated request and finally, said 5-litre conical stainless steel measure which was being used by the petitioners calibrated by the Regional Reference Standard Laboratory, Legal Metrology, Government of India, Bhubaneswar by using Secondary Standard Capacity measure and certificate issued regarding calibration also speaks about the same. In view of that, he submitted that the allegation made is illegal and arbitrary and is non-application of mind and the petitioners were not keeping with them secondary standard capacity measure and in view of that the allegation and cognizance of the offence under the said provision is bad in law. He further submitted that what has been done was by way of authority and in view of the provisions made in the agreement and the provisions made in view of Section 7 of the Order dated 19.12.2005 of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, contained in Annexure-6. He submitted that the petitioners have not acted without any power and malafidely the allegations have been made against the petitioners. He further submitted that in view of agreement as well as the Order of 2005, search power is also there. On this ground, he submitted that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submitted that the petitioners have interfered and not allowed the O.P.No.2 to work and in view of that, the case against them is made out and rightly under the aforesaid provisions the case is registered and learned court has taken cognizance. He referred to Section 2(m) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and submitted that all the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Rules made thereunder is applicable to M/s B.P.C.L also. He submitted that the petitioners have deliberately violated the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009. He referred to Section 2(m) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and submitted that all the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Rules made thereunder is applicable to M/s B.P.C.L also. He submitted that the petitioners have deliberately violated the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009. He further submitted that any provision of Essential Commodity Act, 1955 and Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation and Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 does not empower any officer of Oil Company to inspect and seize any weight and measure and other goods in relation to which trade and commerce has taken place or is intended to take place. Only Director, Controller and any Legal Metrology Officer are in power to inspect and seized weight and measures and other goods in light of Section 15 (1) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009. He submitted that in view of authorization made by the competent authority, the complainant was competent to verify the capacity of measures of M/s B.P.C.L. He further submitted that 5-litre conical capacity measure calibrated by R.R.S.L., Bhubneshwar with using secondary standard capacity measure was not a working standard. He further submitted that all the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are the defence, which can be only looked by the learned trial court in trial, and at this stage, this Court may not interfere with the matter, and may not quash the entire criminal proceeding. 7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it appears that the petitioners are the officers of M/s B.P.C.L. and they have entered into petrol pump in question which was a retail out-let of M/s B.P.C.L in view of the dealership agreement. The dealership agreement is on the record and clause 10(o), speaks as under : “10.(o) At all times and from time to time during the currency of this Licence to give adequate facilities to the company, its officers, agents and servants to inspect and test the accuracy and general working of the Outfit and to investigate the conduct and management by the Licensees of the Outfit and to afford to the company, its officers, agents and servants all proper and necessary assistance and facilities for conducting such inspection and investigation and for maintenance of the Outfit.” 8. Looking in the above clause, it is crystal clear that the right to inspection and investigation has been kept with the officers of the company. The Order dated 19.12.2005 contained in Annexure-6 of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, provision in light of Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and in supersession of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation and Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 was omitted to be done before such supersession, the Order dated 19.12.2005 was issued wherein clause-7 speaks as under : “7. Power of search and seizure- (1) Any Gazetted officer of the Central Government or a State Government or any police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police duly authorised, by general or special order of the Central Government or a State Government, as the case may be, or any officer of the oil company, not below the rank of sales officer, may, with a view to securing compliance with the provisions of this Order, or for the purpose of satisfying himself that this Order or any order made there under has been complied with or there is reason to believe that all or any of the provisions of this Order have been and are being or are about to be contravened:- (a) enter and search any place or premises of a dealer, transporter, consumer or any other person who is an employee or agent of such dealer or transporter or consumer, (b) stop and search any person or vehicle or receptacle used or intended to be used for movement of the product; (c) take samples of the product and seize any of the stocks of the product and the vehicle or receptacle or any other conveyance used or suspected to be used for carrying such stocks and thereafter take or authorise the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of stocks or items so seized before the Collector or District Magistrate having jurisdiction under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and for their safe custody pending such production; (d) inspect seize and remove with, such aid or assistance as may be necessary, books, registers, any other records or documents of the dealer, transporter, consumer or any other person suspected to be an employee or agent of the dealer, transporter or consumer; (2) White exercising the power of seizure provided under sub-clauses (c) and (d) above, the authorised officer shall record in writing the reasons for doing so and a copy of such recording shall be provided to the dealer, transporter, consumer or any other concerned person, as the case may be. (3) The provision of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure, as far as may be, apply to searches and seizures under this Order.” 9. (3) The provision of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure, as far as may be, apply to searches and seizures under this Order.” 9. Looking into the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that any gazette officer of Central Government or State Government or any police officer have been authorized of power to search and seizure. Thus, it is admitted position that the petitioners being the officers of M/s B.P.C.L in view of the above provisions were competent to enter the said dealership out-let for inspection and investigation of oil. It is further stamping and codification of 5-litre conical measure was requested to the Legal Metrological department of Government of Jharkhand which was not complied with and request was further made and lastly, the company requested the Regional Reference Standard Laboratory, Legal Metrology, Government of India, Bhubaneswar for stamping and codification of 5-litre conical measure by way of depositing appropriate fee which was provided by the said Laboratory and the certificate is said to be issued and it was found to be in standard. Thus, it cannot be said that the said 5-litre oil measure was being tried to be tampered or do anything by these petitioners who happened to be the officers of the said company and they were working as officers of quality control cell (wing) of the said company. 10. Insofar as the Act of 2009 is concerned, it is seen from the Statement of objects and reasons behind enacting the same that initially in India, uniform standards of weights measures based on the metric system were established in the year 1956 and were revised in the year 1976 so as to give effect to the international system of units. It refers to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 as well as the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and further states that it had become imperative to combine the provisions of the said Acts to get rid of the anomalies and make the provisions simple. With that object in mind, the Parliament enacted the Act of 2009. Section 3 prescribes that the provisions of the Act of 2009 would have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment than the Act of 2009. With that object in mind, the Parliament enacted the Act of 2009. Section 3 prescribes that the provisions of the Act of 2009 would have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment than the Act of 2009. Section 18(1) prescribes various declarations to be made on a package containing any pre-packaged commodity as prescribed. Section 52 empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 52(2)(J) empowers framing of rules with regard to standard quantities or number and the manner in which the packages shall bear the declarations and particulars under Section 18(1) of the Act of 2009. Section 55 of the Act of 2009 provides that the provisions of the Act insofar as they relate to verification and stamping of weights and measures would not be applicable to any weight or measure used in any factory exclusively engaged in the manufacture of arms and ammunition or both for the use of the Armed Forces of the Union, used for scientific investigation or for research and if manufactured exclusively for export. Section 57 repeals the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 as well as the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. 11. Various provisions of the Act of 2009 indicate that it has been enacted to establish and enforce standards of weights and measures. Use of non-standard weight or measure as well as sale or delivery of commodities by non-standard measure attracts penalty. The Act of 2009 is thus an Act of general nature which seeks to enforce standards of weights and measures especially with regard to pre-packaged commodities. 12. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, it appears that the said case has been lodged against the officers of M/s B.P.C.L. by the Inspector of the Legal Metrology Department, Government of Jharkhand and, prima-facie, it appears that it is a supremacy to be shown on each other and in view of that, to allow the present proceeding to continue further, will amount to abuse of process of law. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of G.O. No.159/ 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 19.08.2014 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella is quashed. 14. Cr. M.P. No. 2664 of 2014 is allowed and disposed of. 15. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.