RUSSI HOMI MODY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order which is as follows:

(2.) There are seven petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 336 of 1981 (R) whereas there is only one petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 467 of 1981 (R). A complaint for violation of Rule 12(e) and Rule 29 of the Bihar Weights and Measures, (Enforcement) Rules was filed by the Inspector of weights and measurement, Jamshedpur before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dhalbhum. The Tisco (a company registered under the Companies Act) was also described as one of the accused along with these petitioners. On the basis of the complaint which is Annexure 6, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jamshedpur by his order dated 6-2-1981 Annexure 7) took cognizance of the offence and issued processes against all the persons described as accused in the petition of complaint. Thereafter, three applications were filed in this Court two on behalf of the present petitioners and one on behalf of the Tisco and it was urged by Mr. Sanyal that no offence whatsoever was made out against the accused persons and, as such the order taking cognizance should be quashed. When I observed after hearing the argument at some length that the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint disclosed violation of the two rules mentioned therein, Mr. Sanyal sought permission to withdraw the application filed on behalf of the Tisco. I allowed that prayer yesterday. In the circumstances, the only argument pressed by Mr. Sanyal in support of these two applications is that no case has been made out against the petitioners inasmuch as the requirement mentioned in Section 42 of the Bihar Weights and Measures Enforcement Act has not been mentioned in the petition of complaint. According to Mr. Sanyal these petitioners have only been mentioned in column No. 2 of the petition of complaint (where the names of the accused have to be mentioned). He says that if a person, other than a company, has to be punished then it has to be alleged that he was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Mr. Sanyal further says that no where in the petition of complaint it has been said that any one of these petitioners was incharge of the weighment bridges and of keeping of standard weight as provided in the rules framed under the Act.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Chattopadhyaya, learned Counsel appearing for the State contended that against the names of these petitioners the designations they hold in the company have also been mentioned and that will show that they are incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. He further submitted that the inspection note which is part of the petition of complaint also mentioned that petitioner Sri A.K. Vishwakarma was reported to be over all incharge of the weighment machines which were under the general supervision of petitioner Shri M.M. Sinha. He, therefore contended that at least these two persons were incharge of the weighment machines and in any view of the matter the requirement mentioned in Section 42 of the Act has been mentioned against these two persons.