01Facts
A Legal Metrology Inspector alleged that an unverified and uncertified 30 kg electronic weighing machine was found during an inspection of a kirana shop on 4 September 2019.
p. 2, 4The petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 31 and 33 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and the Magistrate took cognizance on 2 September 2021.
p. 2, 4The petitioner argued that he was merely a worker at the shop, which was owned by his brother, co-accused Akhilesh Kumar.
pp. 3–4He also relied on material showing that Akhilesh Kumar had paid the fine and been released, and contended that the prosecution was time-barred because the applicable limitation period was six months.
pp. 3–4The State opposed quashing.
p. 402Issues
i.Whether the allegations and material disclosed an offence against the petitioner, who was alleged to be a worker rather than the shop owner.
p. 3, 5ii.Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation, given the alleged six-month limitation period and the dates of the incident, complaint, and cognizance.
p. 4iii.Whether continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
pp. 4–503Law Applied
The prosecution arose under Sections 31 and 33 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
p. 2The Court considered the asserted six-month limitation period applicable to the offence, but the judgment does not identify the specific statutory provision governing that period.
p. 4It also relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, in addressing whether the proceedings should be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
p. 5Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Legal Metrology Act, 2009 Section 31Section 33
04Reasoning
The Court found that Akhilesh Kumar owned the shop and that the petitioner was his brother and a worker there; on the material before it, the Court concluded that no offence had been made out against the petitioner.
p. 5It further noted that the co-accused had paid the fine and that the offence entailed only a financial penalty.
p. 5On limitation, the Court considered the incident dates of 4/9 September 2019, the complaint’s registration on 22 August 2020, and cognizance on 2 September 2021, and concluded that the six-month limitation period had been exceeded.
p. 4In combination, these circumstances made continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner an abuse of the process of the court.
pp. 4–505Holding
The Court held that no offence was made out against the petitioner and that the prosecution was barred by limitation.
p. 5Applying Bhajan Lal, it quashed the Magistrate’s order dated 2 September 2021 and any prosecution arising from it with respect to the petitioner; the application was allowed.
p. 5Original Court PDF
Annu KumarvsThe State of Bihar Through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar at Patna
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
