SETH PURTY SON OF LATE SALAMAN PURTY, GENERAL MANAGER (INCHARGE), HINDUSTHAN COPPER LIMITED, INDIAN COPPER COMPLEX, PO & PS GHATSHILA, DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila in C/2 Case No. 19 of 2007 whereby and where under, cognisance of offence under Sections 45, 47 and 48 of the Weight and Measurement Act, 1985, has been taken against the petitioners, the name of the Act seems to have been incorrectly recorded in place of Standard Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and also prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the above case.

(2.) The prosecution case, as it appears from the prosecution report submitted by the Inspector, Weights and Measurement, Ghatshila, in short, is that the above case was instituted with the allegation that the weighing machine of Hindustan Copper Limited, which was verified on 15.09.2003 was valid till 30.09.2004 but, thereafter, the petitioners had never placed the weighing machine for its verification even after direction given through letter dated 23.04.2007. The learned court below being satisfied with the prosecution report took cognisance of the offence as indicated above.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Das appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the ratio decided in the case Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 , the Hindustan Copper Limited being in possession, custody and control over the weights and measures was a necessary party and non-inclusion of the company vitiates the entire proceeding and the order taking cognisance is also bad in law. It was also submitted that the petitioners, who are the in-charge General Manager and Senior Manager in the said Company M/s. Hindusthan Copper Limited, Indian Copper Complex, Ghatshila, were not under the obligation to produce the weights and measures for its verification and without there being any allegation that such appliances or apparatus were in possession or under custody or control of the petitioners, notices have been issued against the petitioners and that in view of Sec. 62 of the Standard Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 198, the Company should have also been made accused. It was also submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court in a recent Judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2007; Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangeeta Rani has affirmed the ratio decided in Aneeta Hada (supra) holding that when a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against the Managing Director even where vicarious liability is fastened on certain statutes.