LAWS(BOM)-1995-8-77

INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO. LTD. Vs. INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY, STORAGE AND CALIBRATION NO. 1, NAGPUR AND OTHERS

Decided On August 14, 1995
INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
Inspector Of Legal Metrology, Storage And Calibration No. 1, Nagpur And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is praying that the two complaints filed against the applicant in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Court No. 2, Nagpur, and in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 6, Nagpur, be quashed.

(2.) According to the complaint filed on 30-6-1994 by the Inspector, Weights and Measurement, Nagpur Division, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 2, Nagpur, on 13-1 -1994 the complainant visited M/S Moon Light, Sitabuldi, Nagpur, and it was found that one Harish Sharma, aged about 30 years, was present there. He inspected the Studio and found that 200 numbers of Kodak colour film, Kodak gold 35 export 100 Kodak colour film had no labels, as required by the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 (for short the Rules 1977'), and the accused/applicant has committed the offence punishable under Sec. 63 of the Act of 1976 and Rule 39 of the Rules 1977. In the complaint filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 6, Nagpur, it was alleged that one R. Anuj, Inspector of Legal Metrology, Nagpur Division No. 1, visited the shop of M/s Kitta Photographics Pvt. Ltd., Utkarsh Nirman, Sadar, Nagpur, on 5-2-1994 and seized 19 packages of Kodak Gold II without declaration of sale price, month, year of packing on it, which was required under the Act of 1976 and Rules of 1977. On the basis of the said complaints, the Courts after finding prima facie case against the applicant, issued the process. As observed above, the applicant is seeking to challenge these two complaints filed by non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 on 30-6-1994 and 5-2-1994 (Exhs. A and B annexed with the application).

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2.