Tripura High Court
Unknown vs Noting By Officer Or Serial Date Office ... on 7 September, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or
Advocate No Proceedings with signature
Crl. L.P. No. 07 of 2017
In Crl. A. No. 13 of 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
07.09.2017
Heard Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P.
appearing for the appellant-applicant as well as Mr.
R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
The issue before us whether to give leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr. P.C. the appellant- applicant to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala in PRC No. 318 of 2014.
The substance of acquisition under Section 251 of the Cr. P.C. was read to the accused- respondents for committing an offence punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The respondents denied the acquisition, pleaded their innocence and claimed to be tried.
To substantiate the said acquisition, as many as 4 witnesses were examined to establish the ingredients that there was no declaration in the packages of the pea nuts and ground nut and those packets were displayed for sale without mentioning any MRP, net quantity, name and address of the manufacturer and date of manufacture etc. In simple words, there was no declaration at all in terms of Section 6(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and hence the said acquisition was framed.
After recording the evidence, the trial court (Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala) has clearly observed as under:
A.Ghosh Page 1 of 3 Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature Crl. L.P. No. 07 of 2017 In Crl. A. No. 13 of 2017 "As per the complaint petition the accused persons have violated the provision of Rule 6(1) of Legal Metrology Rules, 2011. This rule lays down the following:
Declaration to be made on every package:
(1) (a) the name and address of the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer is not the packer, the name and address of the manufacturer and packer and for any imported package the name and address of the importer shall be mentioned on every package."
The articles in respect of which the instant complaint is filed are peanut, ground nut and dalmoot, which are 'food articles'. But the Explanation-III of Rule 6(1) of Legal Metrology Rules, 2011 lays down that:
"In respect of packages containing food articles, the provision of this Sub-Rule shall not apply, and instead, the requirement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) and the rules made there under shall apply."
In means that food articles are not covered under the Rule 6(1) of Legal Metrology Rules, 2011. Moreover, the ownership of the accused persons over the alleged 'Sreema Bakery' could not be established."
Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in terms of Section 6(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, there shall be declaration about the net quantity, name and address of the manufacturer and the date of manufacture along with MRP on the package. That was evidently not found when those packets were seized from the shop of the respondents in presence of the witnesses.
Those packets were seized in presence of one Arun Chakraborty, PW-2 who had accompanied the Inspector of Legal Metrology namely, Sri Anindya Chakraborty, PW-3. Further, Anindya Chakraborty was accompanied by one Sri Jatindra Shil, PW-1. Sri Balaram Saha, PW-4 had claimed in the trial to have accompanied PW-2. None of those witnesses has A.Ghosh Page 2 of 3 Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature Crl. L.P. No. 07 of 2017 In Crl. A. No. 13 of 2017 placed any evidentiary material to establish the ownership of that shop from where those 6 (six) packets of peanuts and ground nuts were seized.
That apart, the trial Judge has observed that Rule 6(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 can apply in the packaged food. Without going into that aspect of the matter whether that rules would apply or not, since the ownership of the shop from where those packets were seized, could not be established, the prosecutions' case has irretrievably caved in inasmuch as the accused- respondents could not be linked with commission of the alleged offence. In the circumstances, no leave can be granted. If granted, it would be nothing short of judicial persecution.
Accordingly, the leave application stands dismissed.
JUDGE A.Ghosh Page 3 of 3