Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shri Arun Jyoti vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 14 March, 2014
Author: Asim Kumar Mondal
Bench: Asim Kumar Mondal
1 C.R.R. 792 OF 2005 14.03.2014 Shri Arun Jyoti.
Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mitra Mr. Farhan Ghaffar ...... for the petitioners.
Mr. Anand Keswari ......... for the State.
The present application has been filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the proceeding being case No. C-4371 of 2004 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta.
The petitioner Sri Arun Jyoti is the Managing Director of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. It is alleged that the petitioner looks after the corporate matters and administrative affairs of the company. The opposite party No. 2 Sandip Meta, Inspector of Legal Metrology (Enforcement Wing), Government of West Bengal conducted a raid on March 10th, 2012 at Park Automobiles. In course of such raid the complainant Sandip Meta found that one package of white grease there was no declaration 2 printed regarding maximum retail price as per Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules was not in conformity to the said Rule and in one package it was found that the declaration to the effect MRP inclusive of all taxes was not mentioned of actual price. Further it is alleged that there was no enough space surrounding the quantity declaration free of printed information as per Rule 8 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977.
So, Opposite Party No. 2 filed the petition in the Court alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Section 51 of the Standard of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and for the alleged violation of the Rules 2(r), 4, 8, 9 and 23 of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.
The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and directed to issue process against the present petitioner.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order the present petitioners filed the instant revisional application praying for quashing the proceeding on the ground that learned Magistrate failed to consider that in the 3 present case the alleged offence is committed for non- referring the proper price and also for not giving the proper space gap upon the packaging.
The entire procedure is related with packing of the articles.
It is argued and submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. T.K. Mitra appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the packers means a person who or a firm or a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) which pre-packs any commodity whether in any bottle, tin wrapper or otherwise in units suitable for sale whether wholesale or retail. Same is not attributed to the petitioner inasmuch as neither of them has any control over the operation of packing of the articles. It is also submitted that the search and seizure having been made without following the course as provided in the statute. Learned Counsel also argued and submitted that there is a specific bar in Section 65(3)of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Enforcement), Act, 1985 that no proceeding or any other proceeding to be continued in respect of compounded offence. That the Court fails to consider that the petitioner was not at all entrusted or engaged to look into day to day affairs of the production of the commodity on behalf of the company. 4
On careful perusal of the complaint it appears to me that the seizure was not done in presence of any of the petitioners and there is no allegation that the offence has been committed with the consent or in connivance of the petitioner. The present petitioner has been entangled in the present complaint case under the Provisions of Section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 without showing any reason or grounds whatsoever may be in the petition of complaint. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are admittedly Manager and erstwhile Chairman of the Company. Nothing has been shown in the petition of complaint to show that they have controlled over the day to day business of the company.
Under such circumstances learned Trial Court has proceeded with the complaint by issuing process appears non-application of mind and as such the proceedings against the present petitioner is liable to be quashed.
In the result the present revisional application is allowed. The proceedings against the in Complaint Case No. C-4371 of 2004 is hereby quashed. The proceeding in C Case No. 4371 of 2004 be continued against the other accused persons. The stay order granted earlier by this Court stands vacated.
5
Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Asim Kumar Mondal, J.)