Karnataka High Court
Shri. Karunakaran Tirupathi Murthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101978/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. KARUNAKARAN TIRUPATHI MURTHY
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DIRECTOR,
M/S. GLOSIL INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,
1973/A, TIRCHI ROAD,
IYER HOSPITAL,
SINGANALLUR COIMBATORE-641005.
2. SHRI.TANGAM GOKUL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DIRECTOR,
M/S. GLOSIL INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,
1973/A, TIRCHI ROAD,
IYER HOSPITAL,
SINGANALLUR COIMBATORE-641005.
3. M/S. GLOSIL INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,
1973/A, TIRCHI ROAD,
IYER HOSPITAL,
SINGANALLUR COIMBATORE-641005.
REPRESENTED BY PETITIONERS 1 AND 2.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V M SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
:2:
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY
SUB DIVISION OFFICE-2,
HUBBALLI,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.3412/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC I-
COURT, HUBBALLI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 36 OF
LEGAL METROLOGY ACT, 2009 FOR VIOLATION OF
SECTION 18(1) OF LEGAL METROLOGY ACT, 2009 AND
RULE 2(m), 4, 6(1)(b)(d) AND (c), 9(1)(a) OF THE LEGAL
METROLOGY (PACKAGE COMMODITIES) RULES, 2011.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
ORDER
The present petitioners - accused Nos. 1 to 3 are before this Court praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.3412/2017 pending on the file of the JMFC - I Court, Hubballi, for the offences punishable under Section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 for violation of Section 18(1) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) and Rule 2(m), 4, 6(1) (b) (d) and (c), 9(1) (a) of the Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', for short).
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that for the alleged violation of the Act and Rules, the punishment could be imposed in terms of :4: Section 36 of the Act. As per Section 36 of the Act, for the first offence the punishment is imposition of fine and for second offence it is enhanced fine and furthermore once an order is passed under Section 36 of the Act, an appeal would lie under Section 50 of the Act. It is his further contention that the intention of the provision of law is to give an opportunity to the accused persons and to improve the situation. It is his further submission that, this Court under similar facts and circumstances, in Criminal Petition No.100861/2015 by order dated 28.09.2016, has quashed the proceedings. The present facts of the case are similar and is covered by a decision and on these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and quash the proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and contended that there is substantial violation of the said Act and Rules. The petitioners/accused are liable to be prosecuted and punished. He further :5: submitted that, if at all he wants to challenge the action taken in this behalf, he can file an appropriate application before the concerned Court for discharge. This Court has to sparingly exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and it can be used only when there is an abuse of process of law. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in case of the violation of Section 15 to 20, 22, 25, 27 to 39 and 41 of the Act, there will be a penalty and an order has to be passed imposing the penalty as provided under Section 36 of the Act. For the purpose of brevity I quote Section 36, which reads as under:
"36. Penalty for selling, etc., of non-standard packages. -:6:
1. Whoever manufactures, packs, imports, sells, distributes, delivers or otherwise transfers, offers, exposes or possesses for sale, or causes to be sold, distributed, delivered or otherwise transferred, offered, exposed for sale any pre-packaged commodity which does not conform to the declarations on the package as provided in this Act, shall be punished with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, for the second offence, with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and for the subsequent offence, with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with both.
2. Whoever manufactures or packs or imports or causes to be manufactured or packed or imported, any pre-packaged commodity, with error in net quantity as may be prescribed shall be punished with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and for the second and subsequent offence, with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with both.":7:
7. A close reading of the said Section makes it clear that if any offence has been committed under the said Section, the penalty has been stated as provided in the said Act with three categories. If any such violation has been made, an appeal lies under Section 50 of the Act. For the purpose of brevity, I quote Section 50 of the Act which reads as under:
"50. Appeals.-
1. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie,-
a. from every decision or order under sections 15 to 20, section 22, section 25, sections 27 to 39, section 41 or any rule made under sub-section (3) of section 52 by the legal metrology officer appointed under section 13, to the Director;
b. from every decision or order made by the Director of Legal Metrology under sections 15 to 20, section 22, section 25, sections 27 to 39, section 41 or any rule made under sub-section (3) of section 52, to the Central Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by that Government;
:8:c. from every decision given by the Controller of Legal Metrology under delegated powers of Director Legal Metrology to the Central Government;
d. from every decision given or order made under sections 15 to 18, sections 23 to 25, sections 27 to 37, sections 45 to 47 or any rule made under sub-section (3) of section 52 by any legal metrology officer appointed under section 14, to the Controller; and e. from every decision given or order made by the Controller under sections 15 to 18, sections 23 to 25, sections 27 to 37, sections 45 to 47 or any rule made under sub-section (3) of section 52 not being an order made in appeal under clause (d), to the State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by that Government.
2. Every such appeal shall be preferred within sixty days from the date on which the impugned order was made: Provided that the appellate authority may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, permit the appellant to prefer the appeal within a further period of sixty days.
:9:
3. On receipt of any such appeal, the appellate authority shall, after giving the parties to the appeal, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after making such inquiry as it deems proper, make such order, as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or reversing the decision or order appealed against or may send back the case with such direction as it may think fit for a fresh decision or order after taking additional evidence, if necessary.
4. Every appeal shall be preferred on payment of such fees, as may be prescribed.
5. The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may on its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding including a proceeding in appeal in which any decision or order has been made, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such decision or order and may pass such orders thereon as it may think fit:
Provided that no decision or order shall be varied under this sub-section so as to prejudicially affect any person unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action.": 10 :
8. Section 36 of the Act clearly indicates that, if there is any violation, the accused shall be punished with fine, which may extend to Rs.25,000/- for the first offence and for the second offence with fine which may extend to Rs.50,000/- and for the subsequent offences, a minimum fine of Rs.50,000/-, which may be extended up to Rs.1,00,000/- or with imprisonment for one year for both. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, it is their first offence and under these circumstances, an appropriate order ought to have been passed under Section 36 of the Act and no such order has been passed.
9. The proceedings initiated though clearly goes to show that there is abuse of process of law and the Rules and the said Act has not been properly followed On closely analyzing the said Sections and the proceedings initiated, it appears patently there is abuse of process of law and the petitioners/accused have made out a case so as to quash the entire proceedings.: 11 :
It is also noted hear that in similar facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in criminal petition No.100861/2015 by order dated 28.09.2016 has quashed the proceedings. In that light, the entire proceedings are required to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.3412/2017 on the file of the JMFC-I Court Hubballi, for the offences punishable under Section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 for violation of Section 18(1) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rule 2(m), 4, 6(1) (b) (d) and (c), 9(1) (a) of the Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011, are quashed. However, if there is violation of any of the provisions, the respondent is at liberty to take appropriate action as contemplated under the Legal Metrology Act, if they are advised to do so.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab