HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 858 of 2020
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.334 of 2018 pending on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 353 of IPC.
2. On 05.08.2018, complaint was lodged by the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology stating that they went to canteen for the purpose of inspection in the GVK Inox, Banjara Hills. At the time of inspection at 4.00 p.m, they found certain violations under Legal Metrology Act. Panchanama was conducted and as part of the inspection, billing machines were seized. The said inspection was carried on from 4.00 pm onwards. Around 5.00 p.m, the petitioner, who is the Regional Manager, obstructed them from seizing the billing units. The petitioner called his security men who have physically obstructed the legal metrology personnel, however, they managed to seize the 2 property and exit the premises. For the reason of obstruction, the petitioner being the manager therein, who obstructed the legal metrology officials from seizing the billing machines amounted to an offence under Section 353 of IPC, as such, complaint was lodged. After investigation the police filed charge sheet against this petitioner for the said offence.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that none of the ingredients under Section 353 of IPC are made out, as there was no interference with the inspection process taken up. However there was a request by the petitioner asking the officials not to take the billing machines, as it would cause the business to come to a standstill. Further, W.P.No.27029 of 2018 was filed by the association of multiplexes and theaters questioning the department's notification which was issued in respect of non-packaged food items sold by the multiplexes and other theaters. Though the writ petition questioning the said notification was heard and reserved for orders, the 3 Legal Metrology officials have fraudulently conducted such inspection. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments reported in the case of Shaik Shabbir Shaik Ahmed v. The State of Telangana [Criminal Petition No.5338 of 2022, dated 23.06.2022 and Jaganath Enterprises v. the State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No.5421 of 2019, dated 18.12.2019.
4. In both the judgments referred to supra, it was found that pushing public official will not amount to obstructing such official from discharging his official duties.
5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the acts of the petitioner, who is Manager of the multiplex in stopping the legal metrology official from inspection and seizing the billing machines would amount to obstruction of official duties. Accordingly, the petitioner has to face trial and petition has to be dismissed.
6. To attract an offence under Section 353 of IPC, a person has to assault or use criminal force on any public 4 servant with an intent to prevent such public servant from discharging his official duties and the same would amount to an offence. In the present case, the allegation is that when the legal metrology officials were seizing the billing machines, the petitioner allegedly obstructed along with other staff. Admittedly, inspections are carried on from 4.00 p.m to 5.00 p.m. There is no allegation at any point of time from 4.00 to 5.00 p.m, the petitioner had in any manner obstructed the official from discharging their official duties by preparing panchanama etc. However, objection to seize the billing machines on the ground that it would stall the entire business in the multiplex will not amount to obstructing the official duties in the present circumstances.
7. Admittedly, the said machines were given by the petitioner and others to the officials and they were seized. In the process of the inspection, conducting panchanama and the consequent seizure of the billing machines is admitted. Only for the reason of asking the official not to 5 seize the machines on the ground that it would cause hindrance in the business would not amount to deterring a public servant from discharging his official duties. At the cost of repetition, there was no interference for one hour during the process of inspection, conducting panchanama and thereafter, the machines were also handed over. In the said facts of the present case, no offence is made out under Section 353 of IPC and the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
8. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.334 of 2018 pending on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, are hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.04.2023.
kvs 6 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Criminal Petition No.858 of 2020 Date:18.04.2023 kvs