IPC Provisions On Use Of False Weights & Measures Do Not Apply To Offences Punishable Under Legal Metrology Act: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that an accused cannot be prosecuted under Sections 265 (Fraudulent use of false weight and measure) and 266 (being in possession of false weight and measure) of Indian Penal Code for offences covered by the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.Referring to Section 51 of the Legal Metrology Act and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman...
The Allahabad High Court has held that an accused cannot be prosecuted under Sections 265 (Fraudulent use of false weight and measure) and 266 (being in possession of false weight and measure) of Indian Penal Code for offences covered by the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
Referring to Section 51 of the Legal Metrology Act and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal, Justice Vikram D. Chauhan held,
“Section 51 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 further provides that provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 insofar as such provision relating to offences with regard to weight or measure, shall not apply to any offence which is punishable under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.”
The applicant is a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and upon inspection of its retail outlet it was found that nozzle was giving out air, and the wire in the pulser seat of the unit was broken, allegedly enabling the applicant to dispense a lower quantity of diesel than paid for.
Subsequently, FIR was lodged under Sections 265, 266, 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Challenging the subsequent chargesheet, counsel for the applicant submitted that Sections 265 and 266 IPC would not be applicable in view of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. It was further submitted that raid was conducted on 14.06.2017, while applicant had already made complaint dated 03.06.2017 with regard to the dispensing unit, which was resolved on 08.06.2017. As bonafide complaint was made, the applicant could not be prosecuted for the same issue, having already suffered civil consequences (termination of dealership).
Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC with Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act were attracted and there was no bar against the same. It was submitted that seal was broken at the time of inspection which was against the law.
The Court noted that under Section 51 of the Legal Metrology Act 2009, provisions of the IPC and CrPC applicable to offences regarding weights and measures shall not apply to those punishable by the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. It observed that provisions of the 2009 Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other enactment or instrument under any other enactment.
The Court held that the defence of prior complaint raised by the applicant was a question of evidence, which could not be examined at this stage and was to be determined in trial. With regard to civil consequences having been suffered, it was observed that when allegations against the applicant attract criminal provisions, prosecution under law is required.
Thereafter, the Court observed that prosecution was underway with respect to Sections 419 and 420 (cheating( of IPC, along with Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The 2009 Act did not bar proceedings with respect to the same. As counsel for the applicant had not challenged prosecution under said Sections, there was no legal impediment in pursuing the same.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the application, setting aside summoning under Sections 265 and 266 of IPC. With respect to the remaining sections, the prosecution was permitted to continue.
Case Title: Laxmi Kant Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3900 of 2018 ]
Counsel for Applicant: Ami Tandon, Kamlesh Shukla, Raj Mohan Saggi