M/S.Ashlyn Chemunnoor Instruments ... vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1406 Ker

Kerala High Court

M/S.Ashlyn Chemunnoor Instruments ... vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026

                                                  2026:KER:11630
Crl.M.C.No.3564/2020
                                1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

  TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947

                     CRL.MC NO. 3564 OF 2020

        TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A COMPLAINT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE

COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM

AS ST NO.363 OF 2015

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3, 2 & 4:


    1       M/S.ASHLYN CHEMUNNOOR INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,​
            TC 25/668/10,11 REGENCY COMPLEX, KARIKKATH LANE,
            M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001

    2       SMT.SUNITHA ASHLYN,​
            AGED 49 YEARS​
            W/O. ASHLYN ANTONY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASHLYN
            CHEMUNNOOR INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, TC 25/668/10,11
            REGENCY COMPLEX, KARIKKATH LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680
            001

    3       SRI.JOY .K.L.​
            AGED 49 YEARS​
            S/O. LONAPPAN,M/S.ASHLYN CHEMUNNOOR INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE
            LIMITED, TC 25/668/10,11 REGENCY COMPLEX, KARIKKATH
            LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001


            BY ADVS. ​
            SHRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON​
            SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON​
            SRI.P.S.APPU​
                                                2026:KER:11630
Crl.M.C.No.3564/2020
                              2


RESPONDENTS/NOT PARTY/COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,​
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 028

    2     ASSISTANT CONTROLLER,​
          LEGAL METROLOGY FLYING SQUAD, KADAPPAKADA
          P.O.,KOLLAM-691 008

    3     PREMANAND (PROPREITOR),​
          PREM FASHION JEWELLERY, PREM TOWER, PMC NO. XI/396,
          PARAVOOR-THEKKUMBHAGAM ROAD, PARAVOOR,
          KOLLAM-691301.(IS IMPLEADED AS 3RD ADDITIONAL
          RESPONDENT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2025 IN CRK M.A
          3/2020)

          SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2026, THE COURT ON 10.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                          2026:KER:11630
Crl.M.C.No.3564/2020
                                    3




                                  ORDER

Accused Nos.2 to 4 in S.T No.363/2015 on the files of the Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor, have filed this petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the

aforesaid case.

2.​ The proceedings before the learned Magistrate arose upon a

complaint filed by the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology Flying Squad,

Kadappakkada, Kollam alleging that one electronic balance used in a

shop by name 'Prem Fashion Jewellery', Paravoor, for weighing big

chains and heavy ornaments at the counter of that shop, showed

readings which were higher than the maximum permissible error. It

was thus alleged that the aforesaid manipulation was made to deceive

the customers. The petitioners 1 and 2 are said to be the firm and its

Managing Director who supplied the above electronic balance to that

jewellery shop owner who has been arraigned as the first accused in

that case. The third petitioner herein is said to be the staff of the

petitioners 1 and 2 who had delivered and installed the above electronic

balance at the shop of the first accused. According to the complainant 2026:KER:11630

in the said case, who has been arraigned as the second respondent in

this petition, the seal and stamp at the bottom portion of that electronic

balance did not contain the stamp of identification of the authority who

had certified that balance, though it contained a lead and wire placed

similar to that of which when sealing is done. Thus, the petitioners

along with the first accused, are alleged to have committed the offences

under Sections 44(1)(iv), 25, 26 and 47 r/w Section 2(s)(t) and Section

49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

3.​ In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that

they are totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against

them. According to the petitioners, there was no legal requirement to

have a seal on the lead and wire installed on it at the time of sale of the

electronic balance. Stamping on the lead and wire system was not

mandatory till 01.12.2015. The Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology,

Thrissur had certified that stamping on the lead and wire system was

not done within the area of jurisdiction of that authority, and hence the

petitioners cannot be held liable for the above violation. It is further

contended that when the seal and stamp on the lead and wire is not

mandatory, no supplier would go to the extent of affixing a counterfeit 2026:KER:11630

seal and stamp in that equipment. According to the petitioners, if a

counterfeit stamp of lead and wire is found on the electronic balance,

the criminal liability for the aforesaid act cannot be fastened upon the

petitioners.

4.​ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the

learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala and the

second respondent.

5.​ The petitioners rely on Annexure-B certificate, Annexure-C

Appendix and Annexure-D minutes of a meeting convened by the

Controller of Legal Metrology on 16.01.2015 in support of their

contention that at the relevant time when the electronic balance seized

in this case was sold to the first accused, stamping was not being done

by the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology on the lead and wire

system in compliance with the standing instructions from the Controller

of Legal Metrology. It is true that the aforesaid documents would

disclose that the stamping on lead and wire upon the instruments like

the one involved in this case, was not being done in Kerala State till

05.04.2016. But, at the same time, it is to be noted that the criminal

liability attributed to the petitioners herein is not merely related to the 2026:KER:11630

failure to ensure such stamping on the lead and wire. On the other

hand, the crux of the allegation against the petitioners pertain to

tampering and alteration done on an electronic balance supplied to the

first accused in such a manner as to show higher readings in order to

deceive the customers.

6.​ The complaint filed by the second respondent before the

learned Magistrate would disclose that the inspection conducted at the

jewellery shop of the first accused revealed that the electronic balance

being used there for weighing big chains and heavy ornaments showed

readings which were higher than the maximum permissible error. The

bill and the copy of the verification certificate shown by the first accused

to the complainant revealed that the aforesaid electronic balance was

supplied to the first accused by the petitioners herein. In fact, the

petitioners do not dispute the supply of the above electronic balance by

them. It is categorically stated by the complainant that the aforesaid

electronic balance was a new one delivered and installed at the

premises of the establishment of the first accused by the 4th accused

(3rd petitioner herein).

2026:KER:11630

7.​ Section 26 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 reads as

follows:

"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."

8.​ It is clear from the above penal provision of the Act that the

offence of tampering with the weighing device to show higher readings

would come under the above penal provision of the Act, and that the

said offence would be attracted as against the petitioners herein if they

had supplied a manipulated electronic balance to the first accused.

Whether the electronic balance inspected by the complainant was

supplied to the first accused with the manipulations already done, or

whether a perfect and foolproof electronic balance supplied by the 2026:KER:11630

petitioners had been subjected to manipulations by the first accused,

are matters to be decided by the Trial Court after recording evidence. It

is not possible for this Court to embark upon a roving enquiry on the

above aspect, in a proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the

prayer of the petitioners for premature termination of the prosecution

proceedings against them, cannot be entertained.

In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.

      ​     ​     ​     ​     ​     ​       ​       (sd/-)

                                                G. GIRISH, JUDGE


jsr
                                                   2026:KER:11630






             APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 3564 OF 2020

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE-A             TRUE COPY OF S.T.NO.363/2015 ON THE FILE OF
                       THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DATED 5/8/2015 ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22.8.2016 ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE APPENDIX DATED 22.8.2016 ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE CONTROLLER OF THE KERALA LEGAL METROLOGY DATED 16.1.2015