Sudhir Satpathi vs State of M.P. and Others

M.C. Garg, J.—This is petition filed by the petitioner u/s 482 of Cr. PC for quashing of the complaint lodged by the State Government through the Inspector Legal Metrology against the petitioner for having committed offence under Sections 39 and 63 of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Perusal of the complaint goes to show that it has been filed against the Area Sales Manager of Hindustan Lever Ltd. The name of this accused petitioner does not appear in the complaint except in the cause title of the complaint. There is no specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner/accused was in-charge and responsible for conduct of the business of the Company. It is submitted that as per provisions of Section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Section 62 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, if any company alleged to have committed an offence then the person, who was at the time of commission of the said offence, was in-charge and was responsible for conduct of the business of the company for the said offence.

However, according to the petitioner, a perusal of the complaint, copy whereof has been filed, does not give any averment which may establish that petitioner was in-charge and responsible for the affairs of the company in terms of Section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or u/s 62 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.

It has been fairly conceded on behalf of learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent/State that no notice which requires u/s 60 of the Act prior to filing of the complaint was given to the petitioner informing about his role in the entire episode. The aforesaid Section 60 reads as under:--

Presumption to be made in certain cases.-- (1) If any person:--

(a) makes or manufactures, or causes to be made or manufactured, any false weight or measures, or

(b) uses, or causes to be used, any false or unverified weight or measure in any transaction or for industrial production or for protection, or

(c) sells, distributes, delivers or otherwise transfers, or causes to be sold, distributed, delivered or otherwise transferred, any false of unverified weight or measure,

It shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that he had done so with the knowledge that the weight or measure was a false or unverified weight or measure, as the case may be.

(2) if any person has in his possession custody or control any false or unverified weight or measure in such circumstances as to indicate that such weight or measure is likely to be used in any transaction or for industrial production or for protection, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such false or unverified weight or measure was possessed, held or controlled by such person with the intention of using the same in any transaction or for industrial production or for protection.

It is also important to take note of Section 65 of the aforesaid Act, which reads as under:--

Compounding of offences.-- (1) Any offence punishable u/s 39, Section 40, Section 41, Section 42, Section 44, Section 45, Section 46, Section 47, Section 48, Section 51, Section 52, Section 54, or Section 59 or any rule made under sub-section (3) of Section 72, may cither before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the Controller or such other officer as may be authorised in this behalf by the Controller, on payment, for credit to the State Government of such sum, as the Controller or such other officer may specify:

Provided that such sum shall not, in any case, exceed the maximum amount of the fine which may be imposed under this Act for the offence so compounded.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply 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.

Explanation:-- For the purpose of this sub-section, any second or subsequent offence committed after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which the offence was previously compounded, shall be deemed to be a first offence.

(3) Where an offence has been compounded under sub-section (1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may, shall be taken against the offender, in respect of the offence so compounded, and the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged forthwith.

(4) No offence punishable under this Act shall be compounded except as provided by this section.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence for which the petitioner was sought to be prosecuted, a notice is required to be given to the accused to give him an opportunity to compound the offence if he so wish before filing the complaint. The notice was given other accused persons has been filed on record. This notice does not mention about the present petitioner having given such a notice. In these circumstances, when there are no averments made available in the body of the complaint regarding role of the present petitioner that he was in-charge and responsible for the conduct and affairs of the company, the complaint filed against him was premature, as such the complaint cannot be allowed proceed further as prosecution against the petitioner in the absence of essential pre-conditions for prosecuting him would be abuse of process of law. As such, the present petition is allowed. The complaint against the present petitioner filed by respondent under Sections 39 and 63 of the Act being Cri. Case No. 925 of 2001 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaora is quashed. The bail bonds if furnished by the petitioner stands discharged.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned along with the record.

C.C. as per rules.