STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. THERMO PLASTIC INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises an interesting questions as to the meaning of the phrase "use in transaction for trade or commerce" occurring in section 2 (ii) of the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the "act".

(2.) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 are the owners of a concern doing business in the name of M/s. Thermo Plastic Industries, arraigned to this appeal as respondent No. 1. Complainant G. B. Pawar was working as an Inspector having been appointed as such under section 15 of the Act. The premises in which respondent No. 1 is located is at 78, Kalachowki Road, Lalbaug, Bombay 400 033. Pawar visited the said premises on 26-6-1981 at about 2. 00 p. m. P. W. G. S. Tambe was with him and the two of them had come in a taxi hired from P. W. Mohd. Dawood. When Pawar and Tambe first stepped in, the only person present was respondent No. 2 Pawar flourished his identity card and called upon respondent No. 2 to allow him access to the factory. Going inside Pawar found a counter machine on which could be weighed goods upto the capacity of 5 kgs. Markings on it showed that it had been last stamped in the year 1969. Near the machine were six weights of cast-iron-the markings showing them to be of 2 kgs, 1 kg, 500 gms. , 200 gms. , 100 gms. , and 50 gms. The weights of 2 kgs. , 1 kg. and 500 gms had been last stamped in 1969. The stamping on the remaining three weights was not visible. Initially, there was a worker weighing something on the scale. Pawar was requested to and he deferred the examination of the machine and the weights, until the worker had completed his task. After an examination Pawar informed respondent No. 2 that offence punishable under various sections of the Act had been made out. Respondent No. 2 requested Pawar to wait till the arrival of respondent No. 3 who was his brother and was then taking lunch. Respondent No. 3 arrived a little later. He made no secret of his displeasure at what had been done by Pawar. Pawar was asked to get out and respondent No. 3 refused to answer questions put to him. In fact he went further and instructed his brother, respondent No. 2, to also refrain from giving any information to Pawar. The scale and weights were attached. Respondents No. 3 refused to sign the seizure memo and also declined to take a receipt testifying to the seizure. An endorsement of the conduct of respondents 2 and 3 was made on the seizure memo by Pawar. Ex. P-11 is the panchanama of the seizure. A copy of the receipt of seizure memo was sent by post to respondent No 1. In due course Pawar filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 admitted that the scales and weights were not upto date. They denied that they had acted in the un-co-operative and boorish manner testified to by Pawar. It was their contention that the scales and weights were not being used for trade or commerce, but only for research purposes.