- (1.) Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 13.07.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/2 Case No. - 3358 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the court below finding the prima face case under Section Sections 45 and 47 of the Weights and Measures Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), took cognizance of offence and directed to issue summons to the petitioner to face trial.
(2.) The prosecution case, as it appears from the prosecution report submitted by the Inspector, Weights and Measurement, Bistupur, Jamshedpur in short, is that in the place of business, the petitioner has used weights and measure equipments, which were not as per the prescribed standards of the Act. The learned court below being satisfied with the prosecution report took cognizance of the offence as indicated above.
(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Sinha appearing for the petitioner submitted that in Aneeta Hada Vs. the light of the ratio decided in the case Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited; (2012) 5 SCC 661, the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Bistupur, Jamshedpur being in possession, custody and control over the weights and measures was a necessary party and non - inclusion of the company vitiates the entire proceeding and the order taking cognizance is, thus, bad in law. It was also submitted that the petitioner, who is the Division Manager, Supply Management Department, in the said Company Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Bistupur, Jamshedpur was not under the obligation to produce the weights and measures for its verification and without there being any allegation that such appliances or apparatus were in possession or under custody or control of the petitioner, notice has been issued to the petitioner and in view of Section 62 of the Standard Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, the Company should have also been made accused. It was also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent Judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2007; Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangeeta Rani has affirmed the ratio decided in Aneeta Hada (supra) holding that when a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against the Managing Director even where vicarious liability is fastened on certain statutes.;