ANUP RAJARAM KANTAK, MAJOR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 24 r/w section 47 of the Standard Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1985 (Act, for short). The learned Magistrate has sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.400/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four days. Indisputably the amount of fine has been paid. The conviction of the applicant has been confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 27/6/2014 in Criminal Appeal No.122/2010.

(2.) I have heard Shri Kantak, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rivankar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

(3.) Shri Kantak, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. Firstly, it is submitted that the petitioners were mere dealers of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCl, for short). It is submitted that the "measure" could not be in possession of two entities i.e. BPCL and the petitioner. It is submitted that BPCL having compounded the offence, the prosecution of the petitioner was not permissible. Secondly, it is contended that section 47 of the Act would presuppose that a show cause notice is issued prior to launching of the prosecution. The learned counsel has referred to section 47 of the Act in order to submit that it contemplates the failure of any person to present any weight or measure for verification or re-verification "without any reasonable cause". It is contended that a person who is proceeded against has to be afforded an opportunity to show a reasonable cause before prosecution could be launched. The learned counsel has referred to the Memorandum dated 13/7/2012 in order to point out that it only refers to section 65 of the Act indicating that the offence is compoundable and the memorandum cannot be read as a show cause notice, as has been held by the learned Sessions Judge. On behalf of the petitioner reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharshtra & others Vs. Raj Marketing & anr., (2012) 3 BomCR 277 and the judgment of the Andhra Prashdesh High Court in the case of Titan Watches Limited V. Senior Inspector, Legal Meteorology Weights & Measures, (2003) AIR A.P. 175, in order to submit that a show cause notice is necessary before launching of the prosecution. Except these, there are no other contentions raised.