SANTOSH BRAHMA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the legality of order dated 03.09.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Dhenkanal dismissing Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2003/9 of 2003 preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.05.2003 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Dhenkanal in 2(c) C.C. Case No. 54 of 2002 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 51 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') for contravention of Section 33 of the Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Prosecution case is that P.W. 1 the Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology, Dhenkanal alongwith P.W.2 the Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology, Dhenkanal upon inspection of the trade premises of the petitioner on 25.01.2002, found that the mixture packets, exposed for sale in the shop, did not contain the declaration as mandated under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Package Commodities) Rules. One such mixture packet was seized under the seizure list Ext. 1. To substantiate the allegations at the trial, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 basing on whose evidence both the Courts below held the petitioner guilty of the charge.

(3.) In assailing the impugned judgments and orders, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below are unsustainable in view of the fact that neither eye witness was examined nor the seized articles were produced in Court. Such contentions relate to the arena of appreciation of evidence not available to be exercised while exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or even power of revision under Section 397 or Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence of the two official witnesses has come to the conclusion that the allegations made against the petitioner having exposed articles for sale without mandatory declaration in violation of statutory provision is guilty of commission of offence under Section 51 of the Weights and Measures Act for contravention of Section 33 of the Act. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge having dismissed the criminal revision upon consideration of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner with regard to non-examination of independent witness and non-production of seized article, and having upheld the finding of the learned J.M.F.C. upon reappraisal of evidence on record, there is no scope to interfere with such finding by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Though reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Bhaiga Sahu v. State of Orissa, 93 (2002) CLT 684 to seek reappraisal of evidence, the decision relied upon on behalf of the petitioner was rendered by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. upon examination of the propriety of the order of conviction and sentence under Section 47(a) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act which upheld by the Appellate Court.