B K UCCHAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Deputy Controller of Weights and Measures, Belgaum Divn, laid a charge-sheet in CC.102 of 1975 in the Court of the Munsiff and JMFC, Gadag, against the accused persons, who are father and son, under S.11, and punishable under S.25, of the Karnataka Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958. The case was tried and disposed of by the Addl Munsiff and JMFC, I Court, Gadag. When the substance of the accusation was read over and explained, both the accused pleaded not guilty. The case of the prosecution is that on 2-1-1975, when the Inspector of Weights and Measures (PW.1) went to the Tea Depot of the accused situated in the Station, Road, Gadag, he found on search an unstamped counter machine of 15 Kgs capacity, intended for use in the shop and the accused had thus committed an offence under Sec. 11, punishable under Section 25 of the Act.

(2.) The only point framed for determination was whether the accused intended to use the unstamped counter machine of 15 Kgs, viz, MO.1? Besides PW.1, his assistant who is alleged to have accompanied him is examined as PW.2. The prosecution also marked some exhibits. The accused, when questioned under S.313 CrPC, denied the offence. Their plea was that MO.1 was relegated as useless to the store room and that actually they had four other weighing machines which were in use and properly sealed. The Magistrate convicted the accused. Each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50 and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(3.) Sri G.D.Shirgurkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, pointed out several infirmities in the case and argued that the conviction and sentence of the accused cannot at all be sustained. PW.1 is said to have been accompanied by PW.2 and a peon; the peon has not been examined. The panchanama Ex.P2 is seen to be signed by two panchas; neither of them has been examined. So also the person who is alleged to have been in the act of purchasing the tea. The tea was not seized. The pans in MO. 1-weighing machine-were missing. Several independent persons are said to have been present at the shop; but none has been examined. That there v/ere four duly working and timely sealed weighing machines-in the shop, is admitted by PW.1. PW.2 has said that he does not know from where exactly in the shop MO.1 was seized. These circumstances themselves are sufficient to hold that the offence with which the accused are charged is not established. The presumption under Explanation 1 of S.25 stands rebutted.