(1.) THE State represented by the Assistant Inspector of Labour, III Circle, Erode, has directed this appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Erode, acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under R. 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, read with S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules and the Act respectively)
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, while P.W. 1, the complainant in this case, inspected the Federal Bank Ltd., situate at Nethaji Road, Erode, on 22-1-1977, at about 11-95 a.m. the accused who was the then Manager of the said Bank, was found in possession of non-verified and un-stamped weights and measures in his bank, for the purpose of use in the business of the bank and thus committed the aforesaid offence. In the Bank, there were one B class beam scale last stamped in 1975, C quarter (M.O. 1) and Bullion weights of 200 gms., 100 gms., 50 gms. etc. (M.O. 2 series) last stamped in 1975 D quarter. P.W. 1 seized M.O. 1 and M.O. 2 series under the seizure list Ex. P. 1, and he also prepared an inspection report Ex. P. 2. He sent Ex. P. 3, show cause notice, to the accused, to which the accused sent his reply Ex. P. 5. As the reply given by the accused was not satisfactory, P.W. 1, after obtaining the sanction order Ex. P. 6, to prosecute the accused, filed the complaint. The accused contended that his Bank is not dealing in bullions and precious stones and therefore, he could not be mulcted with liability for the offence charged. The trial court finding that -
(3.) THUS, the only question that arises for my consideration is whether the ornaments and other articles of gold and silver could be regarded as bullion. If the answer is found in the affirmative, then the accused would be held to have contravened the provisions under the Rule, otherwise he would be entitled to an acquittal