ARUN SINGHVI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a summary proceedings in C.R. Case No. 280/89, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tezpur convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 1,500.00-, in default, to suffer S.I. for 30 days. In addition, the learned Magistrate passed order confiscating the seized articles belonging to the petitioner. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as disclosed from the record is that the petitioner was found selling ready-made garments (pants) in packets without mentioning the size of the pants and without showing name of the manufacturer and inserting the price of the pieces of the garment by the petitioner himself. After the petitioner was produced before him, the learned Magistrate asked the petitioner whether it was a fact that he was found selling the articles in packets without the name of the manufacturer and by fixing the price by himself. The petitioner answered in the affirmative. On the basis of admission, learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner u/S. 39 of the Package Commodities Act/Rules (sic) by the order dated 4-5-89 passed in C.R. Case No. 280/89 and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 1500.00. Learned Magistrate also ordered that the seized goods should be confiscated.

(2.) Mr. Khetri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such Act or Rules known as 'Package Commodities Act/ Rules'. Apparently, the learned Magistrate committed mistake., From the materials on records it is apparent that petitioner was prosecuted and convicted under S. 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act', for alleged contravention of the provisions of S. 39 of the Act. Petitioner impugned the judgment of conviction and sentence in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in Crl. Appeal No. 18(S-2)/89 questioning the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to initiate the proceedings. The petitioner's contention was that he did not contravene the provisions of S. 39 of the Act attracting penalty under S. 63 of the Act. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, however, held that since the petitioner did not state either before the Magistrate or in the appeal that the articles were manufactured within the State of Assam and the same were not purchased from other States, it was apparent that articles were sold or intended to be sold in course of inter-State trade or commerce and for contravention of the provisions of S. 39 of the Act the petitioner was rightly convicted. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court in this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. T. C. Khetri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor. Mr. Khetri submits that S. 39 is applicable only when commodities in packaged form are intended to be sold or distributed in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. There is neither any material nor any allegation that the articles alleged to have been sold in packets by the petitioner were in packaged form and were sold or intended to be sold in inter-State trade or commerce and that in the absence of any allegation far less materials, the garments sold by the petitioner were in packaged form and were sold or intended to be sold in inter-State trade and/or commerce, initiation of the proceeding under S. 63 of the Act is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and misconceived and the impugned orders passed against the petitioner are equally without jurisdiction, inoperative and void. Consequently, the impugned order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside and that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the fine paid by him and to get back the articles ordered to be confiscated.