Karnataka High Court
M.R.Ingersol vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.253/2021
BETWEEN:
M.R. INGERSOL,
S/O C.M.RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O. DR. AMBEDKAR NAGARA,
BELIEF COURT PREMISES,
ROBERTSONPET POST,
K G.F. - 563 122. ... PETITIONER
(BY DR. G. SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER
OF LEGAL METROLOGY,
SURESH BUILDING,
OPP. RTO OFFICE,
KOLAR-563 101. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
SENTENCE AND THE CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT K.G.F. IN
C.C.NO.793/2018 DATED 19.10.2020, AND THE ORDER DATED
11.01.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.34/2020 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR SITTING AT K.G.F. FOR
THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 26 OF THE LEGAL METROLOGY
ACT, 2009.
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.03.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
This revision petition is filed by accused No.2 challenging
the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.10.2020
passed in C.C.No.793/2018 and the judgment of confirmation
dated 11.01.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.34/2020.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is
that on 07.07.2018, a complaint was received from one Sri
G.E.Suresh Kumar, CDRSM, Bengaluru, DO, I.O.C.L., stating that
weights and measures seal both totalizer and one of the pulsar
unit MIDCO DU having Sl.No.15BC1190V (MIDCO DUAL HSD)
were broken/cut and not in one single piece. Based on the
complaint, inspection was conducted on 17.08.2018 at about
4.30 p.m. in the trading premises of M/s Mahavishnu Agencies,
IOCL Petrol Bunk No.217/2, V.Kota Road, Bethamangala,
3
Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District along with Sri Srinivas Rao
Nagereddy, IOCL and found that removed/tampered the stamps
specified under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 ('the Act' for
short) with an intention to alter the delivery of the quantity. It is
also the case that at the time of inspection, accused No.1 was
present and was in-charge of the petrol bunk and accused No.2
is a dealer of the above said petrol bunk and they had removed
the stamped seals and wire, thus violated Section 26 of the Act
with an intention to alter the quantity of the delivery. It is
further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 are responsible for
having tampered the weights and measures seals and wire of the
dispensing pump, which is punishable under Section 26 of the
said Act of 2009. Hence, a private complaint was filed against
the accused persons.
4. Having registered the private complaint, the sworn
statement was dispensed with as the complainant happened to
be a Government employee and the Trial Court took the
cognizance and issued the process against the accused persons.
The accused persons were secured and granted bail and they did
not plead guilty and claims to be tried. The complainant
examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked the
4
documents at Exs.P1 to P9. The accused were subjected to 313
statement and did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The
Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, convicted the accused persons and directed to
pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence, an appeal was preferred by the accused persons in
Crl.A.No.34/2020. The Appellate Court having re-assessed the
material on record, acquitted accused No.1 on the ground that
merely because accused No.1 was present in the petrol bunk,
she cannot be held responsible for the alleged violation and
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in respect of accused
No.2 on the ground that accused No.2 being the dealer has not
taken any steps to repair the same and accused No.1 was not
having any knowledge about such violation and there is
absolutely no evidence to show that accused No.1 had any mens
rea in order to commit the alleged offence and merely because
she has signed the document, she cannot be convicted and there
is no any vicarious liability in the case of criminal case and hence
not responsible.
5
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court as well as the judgment of
confirmation passed by the Appellate Court, the present revision
petition is filed by accused No.2 before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that there are no material to invoke Section
26 of the Act. The learned counsel would contend that
paragraph No.7 of the Appellate Court order while reversing the
finding of the Trial Court as against accused No.1 would comes
to the conclusion that there is no material against accused No.1,
but confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in respect of
accused No.2 and fails to take note of the fact that there were
no independent witness and relies upon the interested witnesses
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned counsel contend that
the person who reported the lapses has not been examined and
the author of the document Ex.P.4 was not examined. Apart
from that, it is the charge that with an intention to supply lesser
quantity, the said act was done, but not taken any sample or
sent with regard to shortage in supply of petrol to the customers
and there is no legal evidence before the Court. The Trial Court
ought not to have convicted and the Appellate Court also ought
6
not to have confirmed the same and hence it requires
interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent State would contend that
the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is consistent. P.W.1 and P.W.2
have not visited voluntarily and based on the complaint dated
07.07.2018, inspection was conducted by P.W.1 and P.W.2 on
17.08.2018 and found that weights and measures seal both
totalizer and one of the pulsar unit MIDCO DU were broken/cut
and not in one single piece and hence reported the same and
there is no explanation on the part of the accused and hence
both the Courts rightly convicted and confirmed the same.
9. This Court had directed the learned High Court
Government Pleader to verify whether any sample of shortage of
petrol having supplied was collected and sent the same for
examination and the learned High Court Government Pleader
made the submission that no such sample was collected and
obtained any report.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
7
the respondent State, the points that arise for the consideration
of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
coming to the conclusion that the complainant
proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that
accused No.2 being the dealer of M/s
Mahavishnu Agencies, IOCL Petrol Bunk,
illegally removed the stamped seals and wire
and thereby tampered the weights and
measures, seals and wire of the dispensing
pump, in convicting for the offence punishable
under Section 26 of the Act and whether the
Appellate Court committed an error in
confirming the same and whether it requires
interference of this Court?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, the main allegation against the petitioner is that he
illegally removed the stamped seals and wire and thereby
tampered the weights and measures, as a result, dispensing
pump was not in order supplying the short fall of petrol. It has
to be noted that the main case of the prosecution is that the
author of the document Ex.P.4 visited and found the same.
8
Having perused the document of Ex.P.4, it is reported to the
Assistant Controller, Department of Legal Metrology by one Sri
G.E.Suresh Kumar that, the subject outlet was inspected by the
Corporation on 02.07.2018, wherein it was observed that
weights and measures seal of both totalizer and one of the
pulsar unit of MIDCO DU were broken/cut and not in one single
piece. Immediately, the sale from the DU was stopped and
hence views and opinions from Weights and Measurement
Department should be obtained before initiating any action and
hence requested to visit the retail outlet and check the DU and
render the views on the condition of seal. Accordingly, P.W.1
and P.W.2 visited the unit and drawn the mahazar in terms of
Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 is the seizure receipt and found that offence
was committed.
12. Having perused the material on record, first of all, a
person who visited the outlet on 02.07.2018 and gave the report
was not examined before the Trial Court, who is the author of
Ex.P.4 Sri G.E. Suresh Kumar and he must have been examined
before the Trial Court, that only on his inspection and report,
legal action was initiated and Ex.P.4 was not proved. It is
important to note that P.W.1 though says that he also noticed
9
seal was cut, but in the cross-examination, the answer was
elicited that he went along with P.W.3 to the petrol bunk and
filed the private complaint and also admits that MIDCO Company
dispensing pump would be examined every year and they used
to put the seal. He also admits that in 2018 the same was
subjected to inspection and put the dispensing seal, but says
that the same was cut. He says that C.W.3 was already in the
spot and he himself and C.W.2 went together. It is elicited that
public were also there, but they have not signed the
panchanama. He says that request was made, but they did not
agree. He categorically admits that the same was not mentioned
in the complaint as well as in the panchanama. He categorically
admits that no complaint was given by the public and also the
said G.E.Suresh Kumar also not given any complaint except visit
and inspection. He admits that they have not produced the
model seal. It is suggested that accused No.2 was having issue
with Oil Corporation and hence false case has been registered
and the same was denied. He admits that along with Ex.P.4,
G.E.Suresh Kumar did not send any proof for having removed
pulsar unit seal illegally in the petrol bunk and admits that when
10
petrol bunk starts, pulsar unit will be installed by the Indian Oil
Corporation.
13. Having considered the evidence of P.W.2, he is only
a panch witness. He admits that when they inspected the petrol
bunk, there were 7 to 8 public, including accused No.1. Hence,
it is clear that general public were also there at the spot. He
categorically admits that nothing is seized while drawing
panchanama, Ex.P.2 except photographs were taken and except
him, no one signed the same. He admits that he was taken by
P.W.1 along with him while visiting the petrol bunk. He admits
that while signing any document he used to mention his
designation and put his seal. It is important to note that he is
the Inspector of Legal Metrology Department and P.W.1 also
belongs to the same department and P.W.1 volunteers that
public did not come forward to sign the mahazar and nothing is
shown in the panchanama or complaint when the complaint was
filed. These materials were not taken note of by the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court and there is no any independent
evidence. Apart from that, there is no complaint by the public.
It is important to note that while invoking Section 26 of the Act,
no sample of petrol supplied to the customer were taken and
11
sent for evaluation whether it is shortfall or not. When the
charge was made against the accused that by tampering the
same they are supplying inadequate or shortfall of petrol, unless
there is an evidence before the Court, there cannot be any
criminal prosecution invoking Section 26 of the Act. Section 26
of the Act must be read before considering the same. This Court
would like to extract Section 26 of the Act.
26. Penalty for alteration of weight and
measure.-- Whoever tampers with, or alters in any
way, any reference standard, secondary standard or
working standard or increases or decreases or alters
any weight or measure with a view to deceiving any
person or knowing or having reason to believe that
any person is likely to be deceived thereby, except
where such alteration is made for the correction of
any error noticed therein on verification, shall be
punished with fine which may extend to fifty
thousand rupees and for the second and subsequent
offence with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than six months but which may extend to
one year or with fine or with both.
14. Having read Section 26 of the Act, the charges
levelled against the petitioner is that he illegally removed the
stamped seal and wire and thereby tampered the weights and
12
measures, seals and wire of the dispensing pump. I have
already pointed out that with regard to tampering the weights
and measures is concerned, there is no material before the
Court. It is the case of the prosecution that seal and wire of the
dispensing pump was damaged and there are no independent
witness and P.W.2 also accompanied P.W.1. I have already
pointed out that during the course of argument, the learned High
Court Government Pleader was directed to verify whether any
shortfall of quantity of petrol was seized and sent to the
concerned department for weighing and whether there is any
shortfall of petrol and no such steps were taken. The
proceedings was initiated at the instance of Sri G.E.Suresh
Kumar, who gave the report and requested to inspect and he has
not been examined before the Trial Court and Ex.P.4 was not
proved. Though mahazar and seizure were drawn in terms of
Exs.P.2 and 3, there are no independent witnesses. P.W.1
though says that public have not come forward to sign the same,
but answer is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 that he did not
mention the same either in the complaint or in the mahazar.
The Trial Court ought to have taken note of the said fact into
consideration and the same has not been considered. P.W.2
13
categorically states that he went along with P.W.2. When a
suggestion was made to P.W.1 that accused No.2 was having
issue with the Company, though it was denied, there is no
cogent evidence to bring home accused No.2 to invoke Section
26 of the Act and only self-styled evidence, particularly P.W.1
and P.W.2 no other independent evidence with regard to taking
of photographs as well as witnessing cut and removed the seal
and the same has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
While invoking Section 26 of the Act in a criminal prosecution,
the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
charges levelled against the accused. It is important to note
that accused No.2 was not present at the time of inspection and
accused No.1 was present. The Appellate Court already
exercised its discretion by acquitting accused No.1 on the ground
that merely because accused No.1 was present at the spot, there
cannot be any vicarious liability and accused No.1 is not a
dealer. With regard to factum that accused No.2 is a dealer
also, nothing is placed on record before the Court. When such
legal flaw is available on record, the same has not been
considered by both the Courts and hence it is a fit case to
exercise the revisional jurisdiction and unless there is a legal
14
evidence on record, there cannot be any criminal prosecution.
Hence, I answer the point in the affirmative.
Point No.(ii):
15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 19.10.2020 passed in
C.C.No.793/2018 and the judgment of
confirmation dated 11.01.2021 passed in
Crl.A.No.34/2020, are hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted for
the offence punishable under Section 26 of the
Act.
(iv) If any fine amount is deposited by the
petitioner, the same is ordered to be refunded
in favour of the petitioner, on proper
identification.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
