Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Undisputedly, a weight checking data sheet was prepared in the instant case as contemplated under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules. A copy of the data sheet was produced by the state counsel. From the said data sheet, it appears that it bears the signature of the petitioner No. 3 and contains the findings cylinderwise with regard to the declarations as to the net quantity actually contained in the sample packages and the extent of error noticed during the test. Mr. P. N. Ghosh contends that this sheet can, for all practical purposes, be construed as report within the meaning of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24. He then refers to Rule 25. Rule 25 empowers the director or the authorised person to take punitive action in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1976 against the manufacturer, or the packer on completion of examination of the packages at the premises of the manufacturer or the packer, in case it appears from the report contemplated under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 that the number of packages showing an error in deficiency greater than the maximum permissible error is more than ' the number specified in column 3 of the table in the ninth schedule or any such package shows an error in deficiency greater than twice the maximum permissible error. The column 3 of the table in the ninth schedule is evidently meant for insertion of the number of packages showing error only within the range which exceeds the maximum permissible error but does not extend beyond twice the maximum permissible error. The term "maximum permissible error" is defined in Rule 2(i). It means an error in deficiency or excess in relation to the quantity contained in an individual package which does not exceed (i) in relation to the commodities specified in the first schedule, the limits of error specified in that schedule and (ii) in relation to the commodities not specified in the first schedule, the limits of error specified in the second schedule. The commodity with which we are concerned here is not specified in the first schedule. As such, the second schedule will be applicable here and according to the table 1 of the second schedule, the maximum permissible error in deficiency is 150 gms. or mililitre in respect of a commodity whose declared quantity falls with the range of 10,000 to 15,000 gms. or mililitres. The serial No. 12 of the weight checking data sheet relates to the seized LPG cylinders/It shows that the declared quantity was within the range of 10,000 to 15,000 and the error in deficiency was to the extent of 1200 gms. In other words, the error in the instant case was much more than twice the maximum permissible error. As such, it is urged by Mr. P. N. Ghosh that the number of packages specified in column 3 of the table of the ninth schedule does not apply to the present case. It is rather the case of a package showing an error in deficiency greater than twice the maximum permissible error within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 of the Rules.

16. Section 51 of the Act of 1985 provides for the penalty for contravention of Section 33. According to Sub-section (1) of Section 51, whoever manufactures, distributes, packs, sells or keeps for sale or offers or exposes for sale or has in possession for sale, any commodity in packaged form, commits an offence, unless each such package conforms to the provisions of the Standards Act and the Rules made thereunder, read with Section 33. Sub-section (2) makes such a person liable in case he packs, amongst other acts, any commodity in packaged form knowing or having reason to believe that the commodity contained in such package is lesser in weight than the weight stated on the package. According to the Explanation to Sub-section (2), in determining, for the purpose of this sub-section, whether the quantity contained in a package is lesser than the quantity declared on the package or label thereon, the maximum permissible error specified under the Standards Act in relation to the commodity contained in such package, shall be taken into account. Sub-section (1) of Section 65 of the Act of 1985 provides for compounding of an offence punishable Under Section 51. But, Sub-section (2) makes the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) inapplicable to a person who commits the same or similar offence within a period of three years from the date on which the first offence, committed by him, was compounded. The petition of complaint contains annexures suggesting that there was commission of a similar offence on 13-6-95 by the petitioners in relation to the same premises and that the said offence was compounded by payment of composition fee within a period of three years next prior to the date of commission of the offence for which the impugned prosecution has been launched.