Bangalore District Court
Is Not Investigated Who Is The Real Owner ... vs Nos.1 To 4 Are Hereby Acquitted For The on 9 December, 2019
1 CC NO.10208/16
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2019.
Present : Sri.Prakash Channappa Kurubett
B.Sc., LL.B.(Spl).,
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 10208/2016
2.Date of 09/10/2015
offence
3.Complainant State by Inspector of Legal Metrology,
City Market Sub-Division-I, No.7,
Ramakrishna Building, N.R.Road
Cross, Bengaluru - 02.
4.Accused 1.Bhavarlal S/o.Sonaram,
Proprietor, Aged about 56 years,
Retailor M/s.Wire & Cable India,
No.1, 2nd Cross, M.T.Street,
BVK Iyengar Road, Bengaluru.
2.Bhavarlal S/o.Sonaram,
Managing Director, Manufacturer,
Aged about 56 years,
M/s.SBEE Cable (India) Ltd.,
No.29, JCW Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru.
2 CC NO.10208/16
3.Kishor Kumar.B Director,
Aged about 32 years,
M/s.SBEE Cable (India) Ltd.,
No.29, JCW Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru.
4.Dilip Kumar.B Director,
Manufacturer,
Aged about 30 years,
M/s.SBEE Cable (India) Ltd.,
No.29, JCW Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru.
5. Offences U/Sec.18 & 36 of Legal Metrology
complained of Act, 2009, r/w Rule.6(1e) & 6(1e) &
18(1) of Packaged Commodity
Rules, 2011.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 to 4 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted.
8.Date of Order 09/12/2019.
3 CC NO.10208/16
REASONS
Originally this case was in Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court. Subsequently, this case is transferred to
this Court on 28/09/2017.
2. The complainant i.e. Inspector of Legal Metrology,
City Market Sub-Division-I, Bengaluru, has filed charge
sheet against the accused persons for the offences
punishable u/Sec.18 and 36 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009,
r/w Rule.6(1e) & 6(1e) & 18(1) of (Packaged Commodities)
Rules, 2011.
3. The brief facts of the case is that, on 09/10/2015
at about 5.50 pm, when the complainant inspected the
premises of accused persons i.e. M/s.Wire & Cable India,
No.1, 2nd Cross, M.T.Street, BVK Iyengar Road, SBEE
Cable (India) Ltd., No.29, JCW Industrial Estate,
4 CC NO.10208/16
Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru, and found the 10 pre-packed
packages of "SBEE" brand cable(wire) kept for sale, without
mentioning the MRP, wherein the Act and Rules insists to
mention the above declaration, and the possession of said
false packages and supplied to retailer and violated the
provisions u/Sec.18 and 36 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009,
r/w Rule.6(1e) & 6(1e) & 18(1) of (Packaged Commodities)
Rules, 2011. Hence, they have committed the alleged
offences.
4. The Accused persons are on bail. On receipt of
charge sheet, this court took the cognizance of the alleged
offences and furnished copy of the prosecution papers to
the accused persons. After hearing on charge, my learned
Predecessor-in-Office has recoded the substance of
accusation for the offences punishable U/Sec. 18 and 36
of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, r/w Rule.6(1e) & 6(1e) &
5 CC NO.10208/16
18(1) of (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Hence, they
have committed the alleged offences for which accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has
examined 2 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got
documents marked at Ex.P1 to 7, and closed the side of
the prosecution evidence, and Statements u/Sec.313 of
Cr.P.C. are recorded, read over and explained in the
vernacular language of the accused, wherein accused
persons have denied the incriminating circumstances
appeared against them as false and did not choose to lead
defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed. As
such, the matter was posted for arguments.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
6 CC NO.10208/16
7. The PW.1 - Nataraj H.R. Inspector of Metrology
City Market Sub-Division 1, being the first informant
deposed that on 09/10/2015 when he inspected the
premises of accused persons i.e. M/s.Wire & Cable India,
No.1, 2nd Cross, M.T.Street, BVK Iyengar Road, SBEE
Cable (India) Ltd., No.29, JCW Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru, and found that the 10 pre-
packed packages of "SBEE" brand cable(wire) kept for sale,
without mentioning the MRP, wherein the Act and Rules
insists to mention the above declaration, and the
possession of said false packages and supplied to retailer
and violated the provisions u/Sec.18 and 36 of Legal
Metrology Act, 2009, r/w Rule.6(1e) & 6(1e) & 18(1) of
(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. He further deposed
that he gave notices to the accused persons and they did
not appeared before him, and hence, he filed complaint at
Ex.P.1 against the accused persons, and police came to
7 CC NO.10208/16
the spot and drawn panchanama at Ex.P.2, receipts,
notices and VAT receipts are marked at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6.
In his cross-examination he has deposed that he has not
mentioned the batch numbers, and at what time the
panchanama was drawn and boundaries of the
panchanama and which batch number is not mentioned
and not obtained seals from the alleged shops and also
documents. But from his mouth nothing favouring the
prosecution case.
8. The PW.2 is the Mahazar witness. He deposed
that on 09/10/2015, when he was going on Chickpet
cable shop, complainant called him to the alleged shop
and taken his signature on panchanama. He has been
cross-examined by the accused counsel. But from his
mouth nothing favouring the prosecution case.
8 CC NO.10208/16
9. Herein this case, the complainant is not made the
company is party, and perusal of the records it is clear
that the complainant is not seized any material objects in
this case, and from the records, it is not clear that on 10
packets the batch number and MRP is not mentioned in
the complaint, and moreover the complainant is not
mentioned the boundaries of the panchanama, and the
complainant is not investigated who is the real owner of
the shop from the BBMP. So from the material available
on record the prosecution has failed to prove the plea
levelled against the accused. So from the above evidence
the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused. The
other witnesses were not examined. Therefore, from the
material available on record, and oral evidence of the
prosecution, the allegations u/Sec. 18 and 36 of Legal
Metrology Act, 2009, r/w Rule.6(1e) & 6(1e) & 18(1) of
(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, are not proved by
9 CC NO.10208/16
the prosecution and the prosecution failed to prove the
above said allegations with any independent witnesses.
Hence, there is no clear, cogent and reliable evidence to
prove the guilt of accused as alleged by the prosecution
case. From the evidence of the prosecution there is a
doubt the alleged offence. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused
persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 18 and 36 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, r/w Rule.6(1e) & 6(1e) & 18(1) of (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
10 CC NO.10208/16The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 9th day of December, 2019.) (P.C.KURUBETT) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Nataraj PW.2 : Tilak.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 : Panchanama Ex.P.2(a&b): Signatures of PW.1 & 2
Ex.P.3 to 7 : Receipts & Notices.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL.11 CC NO.10208/16
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
NIL List of documents and materials marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.