JAI INDUSTRIES Vs. NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this petition, petitioner seeks quashment of criminal proceedings in case titled "S. Narinder Singh v. Jai Industries " pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu.

(2.) The main facts emanating from the case set up are that petitioner firm is engaged in the business of manufacture of cement for the last more than a decade and the cement so manufactured by the petitioner's firm marketed under the name and style M/s Jai Industries, Jammu under licence No.9312973 dated 10.01.2005.

(3.) That the factory is being periodically inspected by the Inspecting Officer appointed by the Bureau of Standard, who were taking the samples of the cement manufactured by the petitioner factory for its verification, as to whether the cement manufactured by the petitioner factory is as per the standards and specifications required for the manufacture of Portland-Oizzolana Cement Specification issued by the Bureau of Indian Standard and no sample ever was found defective and not to the standard of specification during the past period of more than ten years. It is contended that the respondent is not an officer appointed as inspecting officer by the Bureau of Indian Standard Act, 1986 and had no legal authority whatsoever to enter the premises of petitioner factory and take samples of the cement, since he is not an inspecting officer appointed under the Bureau of Indian Standard Act. In paragraph No.2 of the complaint, respondent No.2 has mentioned that a team of the officers of Food and Supplies Department had lifted the samples of the cement from the premises of the petitioner factory which shows that the respondent is not an inspecting officer and as such also not legally competent to lift any sample from the premises of the petitioner. It is also contended that respondent has no legal authority to send the sample allegedly taken by him to Material Testing Laboratory, Jammu for the purpose of its physical testing and any of its result cannot be used against the petitioner. The inspecting officers of the Bureau of Indian Standard visit the factory of the petitioner quarterly and takes the samples for its verification as to whether the same is being manufactured as per the standard laid down by them. It is also contended that the test which had been conducted by the laboratory mentioned in the complaint and its result is of no consequences as the laboratory mentioned in the complaint has not been established by Bureau of Indian Standard Act and the result whereof cannot be legally taken into consideration for the purposes of the provisions of Bureau of Indian Standard Act. It is also contended that the process initiated against the petitioner by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, for the alleged violation of the provisions of Bureau of Indian Standard Act, is a gross abuse of process of the Court and as such the same is liable to be quashed. It is also contended that there is nothing suggestive of the fact that petitioner is guilty of any offence much less under Section 486, 420 RPC and 11/13 of the Bureau of Indian Standard Act since the complainant/respondent is not an authority appointed as Inspecting Officer under Section 25 of the Bureau of Indian Standard Act and therefore the proceedings initiated on the complaint of the respondent mentioning therein the above said offences is an abuse of the process of the Court and thus are liable to the quashed.