ASST CONTROLLER Vs. JOSCO AUTO SALES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C.C.No. 100/1987 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally is the petitioner herein. Respondents are the accused in the said case. The complainant had filed the above case against the accused/respondent for offences punishable under S.39(1) and S.63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and R.2(s), 6(1)(f), 23(1), R.10 and R.39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.

(2.) According to the complainant, the appellant herein, he inspected the shop of M/s. Josco Auto Sales at Ponkunnam. Accused 2 and 3 are the partners of the said firm. It is the case of the complainant that on 3-12-1986, he inspected the said shops and seized 4 packets from the shop which were exhibited for sale. It is also stated that the sale price was not printed in all the four packets as required under R.2(a), R.6(1)(f), R.23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and thereby the accused had committed offences punishable under S.63 read with S.39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976.

(3.) To prove the above charge, the appellant had examined 3 witnesses and produced and marked Exts. P1 to P8. He has also produced MOs. 1 to 4. The defence did not adduce any evidence. Learned Magistrate considered the evidence adduced by the complainant and found that the prosecution has not established the fact that the accused stored the goods for the purpose of effecting any inter state trade or commerce. Learned Magistrate further found that to convict the accused under S.63, the prosecution has to adduce evidence that the articles in question were kept or intended for sale during the course of inter state trade or commerce. Learned Magistrate on the evidence adduced in the case found that S.63 and 39 of the Act are not applicable in the case of the accused and there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the automobiles spare parts seized by PW.1 complainant from A1 shop was intended or stored for the purpose of inter state trade or commerce. He, therefore, acquitted the accused under S.255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per his judgment dated 22nd November, 1991 against which the complainant had come up in this appeal against the order of acquittal.