M.Wahajuddin - (1.) THE applicant at the material and relevant time happened to be a licenced cement dealer. At the material time cement was under the complete control. From the materials before this Court it would appear that the local dealers used to have their supplies of cement from the factory manufacturing it. THE District Supply Officer was the authority fixing quota which may be lifted and on such authority cement bags were lifted from the factory and stored in the godown. THE applicant was having sufficient unsold stock with him. It is borne out from the record that he kept making repeated requests that immediate permits may be issued so that such stock may be sold. That was not done. Not only that, the applicant was rather directed to lift further quota from the factory and the applicant had to then lift it under protest and stock it in his godown. Repeated reminders were sent to the DSO that on account of excessive rains there is much moisture in the godown and the cement is getting damaged. A further report was made to the ARO regarding particular 30 bags stating that on account of moisture etc. the cement contents in the bags have got damaged and a part of the same has become solid and solid protions have been sorted out to avoid further damage to the remaining contents of the cement bags in question. THE application preferred to the ARO is Annexure II of the affidavit. Even direction was sought as to what should be done about those bags. This particular application was sent on the very 4th October 1980 and instead of any further direction in the matter a raid was carried at the shop of the applicant in the same evening by the ADM (Civil Supplies) accompanied by an Inspector Weight and Measures. THE allegations in the applicant's affidavit that the Inspector Weight and Measures picked out 20 bags out of the very 30 bags in question is uncontroverted in the counter affidavit, and it can be safely accepted. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the portions which had become solid and sorted out from the individual bags were also placed by the side of the bags and lay there. Such allegation again is uncontroverted. This is the state of affairs in which the prosecution has been launched. In fact the applicant may have a greater grievance when his stock was rotting and yet no notice was taken of his repeated requests by the authorities concerned for issuing permit to the consumers so that bags could be sold away without getting damaged.
(2.) IT is further strange that a prosecution has been launched under section 31 of the U. P. Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1959 when on the face of the provisions of that section no offence is disclosed. I have gone through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the other side as well as the complaint that has been filed, namely, Annexure 6. The allegations are that the bags should contain standard weight of 50 kg. of cement while actually they were short of that quantity. IT has neither been alleged that the applicant knowingly lifted bags from the factory short of weight or that he delivered or caused to be delivered to purchaser any bag having lesser quantity than required. Section 31 reads as follows :- "Section 31-Penalty for delivering or receiving any quantity of article less than, or in excess of the quantity fixed by the weights or measure in the contract, etc. ......whoever:- (i) in selling any article by weight or measure delivers or causes to be delivered to the purchaser any quantity of that article less than, or (ii) in buying any article by weight or measure, demands or receives or causes to be demanded or received from the vendor any quantity of that article in excess of, the quantity fixed by the weight or measure by which the contract or dealing in respect of that article has been made, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees." In view of the lanugage of that section the complaint does not disclose any offence ex-facie when neither there is any allegation that any of bags in question having short quantity were delivered or cause to be delivered to any purchaser...... ...... or that the applicant lifted them from the factory knowing that there is shortage in the weight of the bags. It is well-settled law that when the complaint itself does not disclose any offence it will amount to abuse of process of law to let such prosecution continue and the powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised in such cases to avoid unnecessary and uncalled for harassment to any individual and this application therefore must succeed. But before parting with the matter I must make certain observations which is in the larger public interest. After going through the materials of the record I have noticed that a racket has been going on in the matter of supply of the cement. It seems that the ADM Civil Supplies passed an order also regarding the matter giving certain directions. It is internal Annexure 4 of the affidavit. This in itself indicates of the awareness on the part of the authorities that a racket of short supplies exists. In fact press reports have also been annexed as internal Annexures 1 and 2. These materials give an impression that the factories themselves make short supplies instead of the standard weight of 50 kg. per bag admitting of a marginal deviation. In fact, when such situation exist even local stock holders may also exploit the situation themselves, indulging into such practice. It is the poor consumer, we in the hour of his dire need purchases the bags, is the worst sufferer. The State Government has ample powers under the relevant law to have raids carried at the level of the factories when actual delivery is being made or is caused to be made by the factories to the dealers. It can also have checks and raids when in actual delivery is made by the dealers to the purchasers, namely, the consumers to stop such racket. I may not go into further details because this is a matter concerning the authorities. I simply feel it necessary to make these observations in the larger public interest.
(3.) IN the result the application is allowed and the proceedings in pursuance of the complaint dated 5-1-1981 of the INspector Weight and Measures under Section 31 of the U. P. Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1959 pending in the court of Ist Additional City Magistrate, Allahabad, State v. M/s. Pradeed Kumar Gupta Mahesh Chandra Gupta, are quashed. Application allowed.;