Mr. Manjeet Singh vs State Of Telangana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1667 Tel

       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

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

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

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

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

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Petition No.858 of 2020

Date:18.04.2023

kvs