- (1.) Both the criminal revisions, C.R.R. No. 3197 of 2005 as well as C.R.R. No. 20 of 2006 are taken up for hearing together as a common question of law arises in both the said criminal revisions for decision.
(2.) Invoking section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while in C.R.R. No. 3197 of 2005 the Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the Complaint Case No. C-773 of 2004, similarly in C.R.R. No. 20 of 2006 they have approached for quashing of the Complaint Case No. C-649 of 2004. Both the aforesaid complaint cases are pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. While the first impugned complaint relates to the offences punishable under section 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and under sections 51 and 61 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 for alleged violation of section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 read with Rule 26 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The second complaint relates to the alleged offences punishable under section 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and under section 51 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 read with section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 and section 62 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, and alleged violation of Rules 2(r), 4, 6, 8, 9 and 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 read with section 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. The principal ground on which the quashing has been sought for is this that there is no requisite averment in the complaints in terms of section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and section 62 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.
(3.) Besides above the grounds on which the quashing has been sought for are as follows; (a) The Petitioner No. 1 during his tenure as Chairman of Indian Oil Corporation was nominated by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Commission, Government of India and was involved in dealing with the policy matters of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and was in no way connected with the running of day to day affairs of the Petitioners' company at any point of time. (b) The Petitioner No. 2 being the General Manager (West Bengal) of Indian Oil Corporation Limited was also similarly involved in dealing with the policy matters, but was in no way concerned with the running of the day to day affairs of the Indian Oil Corporation at no point of time. (c) Accepting the allegations as it is and to be true no offence as alleged or at all has been made out. (d) The allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable. (e) If there is any violation for the same the distributor is responsible through whom retail sales are affected over which the Petitioners have no control. (f) No materials has been placed before the learned Court below to show that the Petitioners were actually involved in running the day to day affairs of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (g) It appears from the allegations made in the complaint that offence has been committed by the M/s. Freedom Services, the distributorship concern. (h) There was no averment in the petition of complaint that the Petitioners were in-charge and responsible for running the day to day business of the company. (i) The learned Magistrate most arbitrarily and mechanically issued the process and set the criminal law into motion. (j) There is no effectual foundation that the accused company Indian Oil Corporation Limited has actually made, manufactured, packed and sealed or caused to be packed or distributed, delivered or offered, exposed for sale the seized articles. (k) The proceeding has been launched out of utter mala fide.;