PRAJAY ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.133/96 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adilabad.

(2.) The petitioner is a firm dealing in real estate. It issues advertisements in newspapers from time to time as part of its activity for the purpose of sale to the general public. In the advertisements, plots of various sizes are offered. The size of the plot is usually mentioned in terms of acres, or part of an acre or in terms of square yards or square feet. The petitioner happened to issue an advertisement in the Deccan Chronicle dt.26-10-1995 about the availability of plots for sale at Shameerpet and the plot sizes were mentioned as 1/4 acre, 1/2 acre, 1 acre, 650 square feet and 1000 square feet, for house plots. The District Inspector, Legal Metrology, issued notice to the petitioner stating that such a publication is prohibited under Section 11 (c) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and as per Section 5(1), r/w Section 14(11) of the Act the unit of length is meter and not acre, square yard or square feet. As the petitioner has contravened the above provisions it is stated that the petitioner is liable for the offence punishable under Section 41 (c) of the Act. He indicated that the petitioner may either compound the offence by paying a fee of Rs.2,000/- or alternatively to face prosecution in a Court of law. The petitioner sent a reply dt.18-11-1995 stating that the Act, 1985 does not deal with lands and that the notice is misconceived and the authorities cannot invoke the jurisdiction which is not vested under the Act. However, the authority initiated prosecution. A complaint was filed for the offence under Section 11 (c) of the Act punishable under Section 41 (c) of the Act against the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner stated that the provisions of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 apply only to goods that are sold or distributed by weight, measure or number regulating commerce and the provisions of the Act only are attracted in respect of movable property. The Act has no application in respect of immovable property, especially the land. Even the Rules framed under the Act also show that the provisions refer to goods which are admittedly movable. Further, the petitioner does not require to be registered under the provisions of the Act to carry on its business. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and the Court has no jurisdiction. He prayed for quashing of S.T.C.No.133/96.