Karnataka High Court
Pandurang S/O Yallappa Madhurkar vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 October, 2012
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
B E F OR E
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRL.P. NO.7930/2010
BETWEEN:
1. PANDURANG, S/O YALLAPPA MADHURKAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
GANESH TRADE LINKS,
G-10, EUREKA TOWERS, TRAFFIC ISLAND,
HUBLI, R/O BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI
2. RAKESH JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
AVINASH DISTRIBUTORS,
NEAR TULAJABHAVANI TEMPLE,
1ST FLOOR, R.K.COMPLEX,
DAJIBANPETH, HUBLI
3. RAJASHEKAR, SLO ARMUGAM,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
EUREKA FORBES LTD.,
NO.111, AFEEZA CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR,
K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE - 27
4. T.K.RAVIKUMAR, S/O T.S.KRISHNAMURTHY,
2
AGED 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
EUREKA FORBES LTD.,
NO.111, AFEEZA CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR,
K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE - 27
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.R.PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METEROLOGY
A & T, HUBLI
BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.H.GOTKHINDI, AGA.,)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C SEEKING OF QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED
BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS OF C.C.NO.1435/2008, PENDING ON THE
FILE FO JMFC-II COURT, HUBLI.
ORDER
Petitioners have called in question initiation of prosecution against them in C.C.1435/08 for the offences under the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and Rules framed thereunder.
3
2. In support of the action, it is alleged 2nd respondent through his complaint before JMFC, Hubli, stated that he visited the business premises of the 1st petitioner on 6.12.2007 at 4.00 p.m. with his staff and found pre-packed packets of Forbes Easy Clean Vacuum Cleaner Box with a declaration on the label that it was supplied by respondents 3 and 4. They found Bill No.237 dated 6.12.2007 evidencing supply of material to the 1st petitioner which, according to the complainant, is in contravention of the Standards of Weights and Measurements Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity), an offence punishable under Rules 4, 23(1), 6(1) and 1(B) and Sections 63 and 39 of the Act.
3. Based on his report, the JMFC has registered a case against the petitioners in C.C.1435/08 and process has been issued to secure their presence. Petitioners have questioned initiation of prosecution on the ground, 2nd respondent had no legal competence to file such complaint in view of Section 72. He relies on the decision of this court in the case of MANAGER, ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED 4 .vs. INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROOLOGY, FLYING SQUAD-1, dated 29.5.2012 reported in 2002 LAWSUIT KAR. 300.
4. I have heard learned counsel on both sides. Section 72 of the Act provides cognizance of the offences. It envisages: 'Cognizance of offences, etc.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint, in writing, made by- (i) the Director; (ii) any other authorised officer; (iii) any person aggrieved; or (iv) a recognised consumer association whether the person aggrieved is a member of such association or not. Explanation - For the purposes of this clause "recognised consumer association" means a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law for the time being in force;
(b) No court inferior to that a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act; (c) An offence punishable under section 50, Section 58, Section 60, Section 61, Section 63, Section 64, Section 65 or Section 66, may be tried summarily by a Magistrate and no 5 sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year shall be passed in the case of any conviction for an offence which is summarily tried under this section.' The 2nd respondent who is the complainant has not produced the authorization as required under Section 72 of the complainant.
5. Mr.P.H.Gotkhindi would submit he is in possession of the authorization and therefore, it would be produced at the stage of evidence, and at this stage merely because he had not produced it, it cannot render prosecution unsustainable. He would submit complainant has narrated this fact in his complaint that he is authorized to file the complaint. Hence, non-filing of authorization is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. Such submission would not save the restriction imposed by Section 72 of the Act in view of the decision of this court wherein there is emphatic observation that at the time of presentation of the complaint, complainant must satisfy that he is authorized under Section 72 of the Act. He cannot withhold such authorization and seek permission to produce it later.
6
7. In this view, as it is not in dispute that the Inspector has not produced the authorization while filing the complaint, the trial court could not have taken cognizance for the offences indicated above. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.1435/08 on the file of JMFC-II, Hubli, are quashed. The petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE vgh*