Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka Through vs Unknown on 1 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE ....... DAY OF ....................2016
C.C. No.18483/2010
Present: SRI. CHINNANNAVAR R. S.
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka through
Inspector of Legal Metrology.
(State by Sr. A.P.P.)
V/s.
ACCUSED :
1. Suryamani.N. S/o.
Natarajan, Aged about 37
years, Proprietor.
2. Sri.Navneeth s/o.
Narayanaswamy, aged
about 35 years,
M/s.Vijayalakshmi
Marketing, No.153, R.V.
Road, Near Minerva Circle,
V.V.Puram, Bengaluru.
3. Pleaded guilt before
complainant.
(Reptd. by Sri.C.S. Advocate)
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The complainant i.e. Inspector of Legal Metrology filed
complaint before the court against accused No.1 to 3 for the
offences punishable U/s 39 of Standards of Weights and
2 CC.NO.18483/2010
Measures Act 1976 R/w. rule 4, 6(A) 23(1) of Packaged
Commodities Rules 1977 punishable U/s. 63 of Standards of
Weights and Measures Act 1976.
2. It is alleged that, accused No.1 and 2 are running
M/s.Vijayalakshmi Home Appliances in V.V.puram Bengaluru and
in their shop they were selling stainless steel LPG stove in
prepackaged packages and on said pack they have not shown
manufacturer address and only shown marketer address and on
4 prepackaged packages of Pyramis Bio-disposer they have
affixed label having incomplete declaration i.e. date of
manufacturing and MRP was written without qualifying words
(inclusive of taxes) and thereby committed offences punishable
U/s 39 of Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 R/w. rule
4, 6(A) 23(1) of Packaged Commodities Rules 1977 punishable
U/s. 63 of Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976.
3. It is alleged that, the complainant i.e. Inspector of Legal
metrology visited the spot of accused on 21/10/2009 at 9.00
p.m. with CW.2 and noticed the above said deficiencies and
hence he issued legal notice to the accused but inspite of legal
notice they have not complied the same and not came forwarded
to compound the case hence he filed complaint before the court.
With prayer to punish the accused for the above said offence.
4. On perusing complaint this court has taken cognizance
against the accused and issued summons. On service of
summons both the accused have appeared and released on bail.
3 CC.NO.18483/2010
5. The substance of the accusation plea for the offences
U/s. 63 of Weight and Measures Act and Sec.39 of Weight and
Measures Act R/w. Rule 4, 6(a) and 23(1) of Packed
Commodities Rules was framed and recorded, accused have
denied the allegations and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the case the complainant got
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 3 and MO.1
to 4. and got examined one witness as PW.2.
7. The statement of the accused as required U/s. 313
Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Accused have denied the
incriminating evidence and not chosen to lead defence evidence
but got marked Ex.D.1 and D.2 through the cross of PW.1.
8. The following point arises for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that, accused No.1 and 2 are running
M/s.Vijayalakshmi Home Appliances in V.V.puram
Bengaluru and in their shop they were selling stainless
steel LPG stove in prepackaged packages and on said
pack they have not shown manufacturer address and
only shown marketer address and on 4 prepackaged
packages of Pyramis Bio-disposer they have affixed
label having incomplete declaration i.e. date of
manufacturing and MRP was written without qualifying
words (inclusive of taxes) and thereby committed
4 CC.NO.18483/2010
offences punishable U/s 39 of Standards of Weights
and Measures Act 1976 R/w. rule 4, 6(A) 23(1) of
Packaged Commodities Rules 1977 punishable U/s. 63
of Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 ?
2. What order ?
9. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 - In the Negative.
Point No.2 _ As per final order for the following;
REASONS
POINT NO.1:
10. Accused have not disputed that they are running
Vijayalakshmi Marketing Ltd, but they disputed the violation of
rules. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that, on LPG
stove packages accused have not mentioned manufacturers
address. So thereby they have committed offence sec.39 of
Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 R/w. rule 4, 6(A)
23(1) of Packaged Commodities Rules 1977 punishable U/s. 63 of
Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976. Accused have not
disputed that, complainant has seized 4 LPG packaged stoves
from their shop. In order to prove the case the complainant has
got examined himself as PW.1 and he reiterated the complainant
allegations. He got marked Seizure panchanama as Ex.P.1,
notice as Ex.P.2 and complaint as Ex.P.3. During cross-
examination of accused they have got marked Ex.D.1 trade mark
register certificate and Ex.D.2 reminder No.1 issued by the
5 CC.NO.18483/2010
accused. Ex.D.1 discloses that, accused have got trade mark
from Government of India. The said trade mark is appearing on
MO-1 to 4. On MO-1 to 4 the manufacturers address is not
mentioned but the trade mark of the complainant i.e.
"Vijayalakshimi Marketing" with address is mentioned. The trade
mark "Vijayalakshimi Home appliances is also shown. As per the
definition of manufacturer provided in Weights and Measures Act
if trade mark is shown on the packages and even if the said
product is not manufactured by the trade mark holder then also
they comes under definition of the manufacturer i.e. if trade
mark holders falls under the definition of Manufacturer. In this
case accused are trade mark holder of Vijayalakshmi Marketing.
On Mo-1 to 4 they have shown their trade mark as well as the
address. So it is sufficient to communicate the address of trade
mark holders to the customers. Hence even if manufacturers
address is not shown it does not violate any rules of Weights and
Measures Act. The main purpose of showing manufacturer
address is to give an opportunity to the customers to contact
manufacturer if they have any grievance as against goods.
11. In this case accused being the trade mark holders
have shown their address. Hence if any customers are having
grievance they can contact the trade mark holders. So looking to
the definition of manufacturer and materials on record I hold
that, there is no any violation of Act, rules or section mentioned
in Weights and Measures Act. The complainant during in cross
admitted about mentioning of trade mark on the MO-1 to 4. It
6 CC.NO.18483/2010
appears that, complainant without verifying the trade mark of
accused mechanically issuing a notice and filed this complaint.
Hence I hold that, the evidence of complainant and the evidence
of his driver PW.2 is not at all sufficient to attract the ingredients
of offence alleged.
12. It is well settled position of law that, prosecution has to
prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt but the prosecution
has not all proved its case through the evidence of PW.1 and 2.
It is also well settled position of law that if there exists any
reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution then the benefit
of the doubt shall be always given to the accused. In this case
there is no evidence against the accused. Hence I hold that,
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and
I extend benefit of the doubt to the accused by answering point
No.1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2 :
13. In view of my answer to point No.1 in negative
accused are entitle for acquittal from the offences alleged. Hence
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/s. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. both accused are acquitted from the offences punishable U/s 39 of Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 R/w. rule 4, 6(A) 23(1) of Packaged Commodities Rules 1977 punishable U/s. 63 7 CC.NO.18483/2010 of Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976..
The bail bond of the accused and their sureties stands cancelled after appeal period is over.
MO-1 to 4 shall be returned to the accused after appear period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the ........ day of ...................., 2016) (Chinnannavar R. S.) XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW-1 : G.N. Narasimha Murthy PW-2 : K.Anand Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Panachanama
Ex.P-1(a b) : Signatures
Ex.P-2 : Notice
Ex.P-3 : Private Complaint
Witnesses examined for the accused:
Ex.D-1 : Trade mark Registration Certificate Ex.D-2 : Reminder Documents marked for the accused:
-NIL-
(Chinnannavar R. S.) XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORU.