Tata Motors Ltd. vs Legal Metrology Officer Weights & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 4332 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 10th September, 2014

+      CRL.M.C. 1148/2012

TATA MOTORS LTD.                                         ..... Petitioner
                                 Through:   Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with
                                            Mr.Laksh Khanna, Adv.
                        versus

LEGAL METROLOGY OFFICER WEIGHTS & MEASURES
DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI       ..... Respondent
                 Through: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for the
                           State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH

VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner assails order dated 26.09.2011 and 07.01.2012 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

2. In short, the facts of the present case are that the respondent filed a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 18(1)/36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 6 of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011 against the petitioner on the allegations, inter alia, that the packages of Art Leather Steering Grip (Part No.886052401701) packed on 18.04.2011 bear the name of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. having its registered office at Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400001. Name of the manufacturer /manufacturing

unit was also not declared which is a violation of Rule 6(1)(a) read with Rule 10 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

3. Vide impugned order dated 26.09.2011, learned trial Court summoned the petitioner under Sections 18(1)/36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 6 of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.01.2012, fresh summons were issued against the petitioner.

4. Against the said orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of respondent is that the petitioner has violated Rule 6(1) (a) read with Rule 10 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rule, 2011. He also submits that the offence is not made out as the sticker on the packaging material discloses the requisite particulars. It declares the name of the petitioner company which is responsible for putting the product in the market and for customers' convenience, gives the consumers' convenience, gives the consumer contact details as mandated by law including address, phone number, e-mail etc. and also gives the registered office details of the petitioner company. The other details like generic name of the product, date of packaging, quantity and the maximum retail price are also mentioned.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent urges that on 18.05.2011, a team of Weight & Measures Department inspected the premises of M/s. Him Motors Pvt. Ltd, D-9, Udyog Nagar, Peera Garhi, New Delhi-41 in the presence of Shri Manish Srivastava, Manager

(Sales). During the inspection, it was found that the said firm was in possession of a packet of Art Leather Steering Grip which was meant for sale and having declaration on its display panel as part No.886052401701, Item SR 000050, packed on 18.04.2011 and also bears the name of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Registered Office, Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400001 but did not bear the name of the manufacturer/manufacturing unit which is a violation of Rule 6(1)(a) read with Rule 10 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rule, 2011.

7. During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent have informed that notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. is yet to be framed.

8. Section 251 Cr.P.C. deals with the stage that is subsequent to issue of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in a summary trial case. This provision casts a duty upon the Magistrate to state the particulars of offence to the accused allegedly committed by him and asking him whether he pleads guilty. This can be done by the Magistrate only if the complaint/preliminary evidence/charge-sheet recorded during enquiry disclose commission of a punishable offence. If the charge- sheet/complaint does not make out a triable offence, a Magistrate cannot state the particulars of non-existing offence for which the accused is to be tried. Therefore, it is inherent in Section 251 Cr.P.C. that when an accused appears before the trial court pursuant to summons issued against him under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to go through the charge-sheet/ complaint and arrive at a conclusion whether or not commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the

affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty, otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused.

9. In my view, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available to him to urge all the pleas before the trial court at the time of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. This Court is of the opinion that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not required to be invoked to quash the proceedings, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2012) 5 SCC 424, the relevant para of the judgment reads as under:

"20. It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when an accused appears before the trial court pursuant to summons issued under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge-sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused as per Section 239 of the Code."

10. Further, the Apex Court in another case Krishna Kumar Variar vs. Share Shoppe, (2010) 2 SCC 485 observed:-

"4. In our opinion, in such cases where the accused or any other person raises an objection that the trial court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person should file an application before the trial court making this averment and giving the relevant facts. Whether a court has jurisdiction to

try/entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of the case. Hence, instead of rushing to the higher court against the summoning order, the person concerned should approach the trial court with a suitable application for this purpose and the trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case.

5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant, if so advised, may approach the trial court with a suitable application in this connection and, if such an application is filed, the trial court shall after hearing both the sides and after recording evidence on the question on jurisdiction, shall decide the question of jurisdiction before further proceeding with the trial."

11. In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid cases, this petition is not maintainable. Since notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. is yet to be framed, so it is deemed appropriate to relegate the petitioner to urge all the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the time of hearing on the framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. If it is so done the trial court shall deal with the said pleas in accordance with law.

12. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Crl.M.A No. 4018/2012 The application is dismissed as infructuous.

(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 10, 2014/gm