Annu Kumar vs The State of Bihar Through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar at Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61682 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010836452024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2020 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Annu Kumar Son of Late Chaturgun Prasad Resident of- Kirana Dukan,
Place-D-18, P. C. Coloney. Mahavir Nagar, South of Hanuman Nagar, Near
M.L.G. 185, Kankarbagh, Lohia Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna,
Bihar-800020.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar at Patna
Bihar
2. The Controller, Legal Metrology, Bihar at Patna. Bihar
3. The Joint Controller, Legal Metrology, Patna Division at Patna. Bihar
4. The Inspector, Legal Metrology, Patna Sadar at Patna Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed seeking
quashing of the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Second Class, Patna Sadar, Patna in Complaint Case
No.111(O) of 2020 (now Complaint Case No.247(O) of 2024),
whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under
Sections 31 and 33 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61682 of 2024 dt.29-10-2026
2/5
3. The short facts of the case is that one B.K. Sinha,
being the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Patna Sadar, alleged that
during an inspection conducted on 04.09.2019 at M/s Ankita
Kirana General Store, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, an
unverified and uncertified electronic weighing machine of 30 kg
capacity was found. A notice was issued directing the production
of the machine for inspection on 09.09.2019, but the machine was
not produced. Consequently, the Inspector submitted a proposal for
prosecution to the Joint Controller, Legal Metrology, Patna
Division, vide Letter No. 233 dated 31.10.2019. Upon
consideration of the matter, the Joint Controller accorded sanction
for prosecution vide Letter No. 558 dated 04.07.2020, thereby
authorizing the initiation of legal proceedings against the accused
under the applicable provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, at
the outset, that the present prosecution has been wrongly initiated
against the petitioner, as even as per the complaint, he was only a
worker in the said shop owned by co-accused Akhilesh Kumar and
was residing in the same house along with him as he happened to
be his brother. In such view of the matter, prosecution against him
would not be sustainable, as he cannot be held responsible for any
illegal action of others, and no offence under the alleged offences

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61682 of 2024 dt.29-10-2026
3/5
would be made out as against him. It has further been submitted
that no substantive material has been found against the petitioner
in order to lend support to the allegations made against him. As a
matter of fact, the petitioner is a government employee, and the
present prosecution would unnecessarily tarnish his future
prospects.
5. By way of an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A.
No. 01 of 2026, this petitioner has brought on record the fact that
the present offence is punishable only with fine and the co-accused
Akihlesh Kumar, being the shop owner, has already deposited the
requisite fine and he has also been set free in the matter by the
concerned Court. Annexure-P/3 to the I.A. has been brought on
record to lend support to the submission that the fine has already
been paid.
6. Further, the learned counsel has also advanced a legal
submission that the offence took place on 04.09.2019, while
cognizance has been taken on 02.09.2021 in the said matter, which
is also barred by limitation, as under the said Act, the limitation
would only be of six months, whereas cognizance has been taken
approximately two years after the alleged occurrence.
7. Learned APP for the State has opposed the present
application on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61682 of 2024 dt.29-10-2026
4/5
and also on the ground that order impugned may not be interfered
with, at this stage.
8. I have heard the contentions made on behalf of the
petitioner as also the State and have gone through the documents
which have been placed on record, including the I.A. No.01/2026.
9. It appears upon perusal of the documents that it was
co-accused Akhilesh Kumar who was the shop owner, and this
petitioner, being his brother and a worker in the shop, would not
be liable under the offences as alleged. Moreover, this Court has
also taken notice of the fact that co-accused Akhilesh Kumar has
already deposited the fine amount, as would be evident from the
I.A. No. 01 of 2026 (Annexure P/3), the present offence entailing
only financial penalty.
10. The legal submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioner is also being considered by this Court and it prima facie
appears that the complaint itself is barred by limitation, as the date
of occurrence was 04.09.2019/09.09.2019, while the formal
complaint came to be registered on 22.08.2020 and cognizance
came to be taken approximately two years after the date of
incident, on 02.09.2021. The limitation period under the offence is
only six months, while the complaint itself was instituted after
about a year.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61682 of 2024 dt.29-10-2026
5/5
11. Thus, taking a comprehensive view of the case, both
in factual and legal context, this Court is of the view that in the
present nature of case, where the fine amount has already been
paid by the co-accused, coupled with the fact that the
complaint/cognizance itself is barred by limitation and further
considering that no offence is made out as against the present
petitioner, continuance of any criminal prosecution as against him
would only amount to the abuse of the process of court.
12. Thus, in view of the law laid down in the case of
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , reported in (1992) Supp (1)
SCC 335 , the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Patna Sadar, Patna in
Complaint Case No.111(O) of 2020 (now Complaint Case
No.247(O) of 2024) and any other prosecution arising therefrom,
with regard to the petitioner, stands quashed.
13. Accordingly, this application is allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.11.2026
Transmission Date 02.11.2026