S.SIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A3 in the impugned final report. Crl.O.P.No.21450 of 2019 has been filed by A3. Crl.O.P.No.6401 of 2020 has been filed by A1. The crux of the allegation in the impugned final report is that A1, with the technical assistance of A2 and A3, manufactured Electronic Weighing Machines (EWM) with fabricated control panel according to the needs of the trader; and sold them to greedy traders without getting them stamped and authorised from the Legal Metrology Officer. The further allegation is that the traders, who purchased the machines unlawfully, used them to cheat the general public in the trade. The petitioners were hence charged for the offences under Ss. 267 and 420 of IPC.

(2.) Mrs. Lakshmi Sriram, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 in Crl.O.P.No.21450 of 2019 submitted that the impugned final report for the alleged offences, has to be quashed since the allegations, even if accepted to be true, only attract offences under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in (2019) 19 SCC 740 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Aman Mittal and another) in this regard. The learned counsel further submitted that the offence under Sec. 420 IPC is also not made out against the petitioner since admittedly he did not deceive any person. The allegation is that the petitioner had the necessary expertise to deal with the program in the motherboard and had assisted the first accused in the illegal trade. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner had deceived any person, the offence of Sec. 420 IPC is not made out. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for quashing the impugned final report.

(3.) Mr. A.P.Sathyamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.No.6041 of 2020 reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 in Crl.O.P.No.21450 of 2019. The learned counsel added that even as per the allegations in the final report, the petitioner had adjusted the panels according to the needs of the trader. Even accepting the allegations to be true, the petitioner had not deceived any third party. The contract between the petitioner and the trader who purchased the Electronic Weighing Machines may be illegal but does not attract the offence of cheating since admittedly, it is on the trader's request the Electronic Weighing Machines were manufactured.