In an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), before the Allahabad High Court for quashing a charge sheet dated 06-09-2017 and summoning order dated 25-10-2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Banda, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan held that prosecuting the applicant under Sections 265 and 266 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[1] (IPC) would not be tenable under law and thus, partly set aside the impugned summoning order.
The Applicant is a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, which had its retail outlet in Banda. A team of sales officers from Indian Oil Corporation conducted an inspection at the said retail outlet, along with the Weights and Measures Inspector, during which it was found that nozzle 2 was dispensing air and that another wire in the seal was broken.
A First Information Report (FIR) dated 19-07-2017 was lodged under Sections 265, 266, 419[2], and 420[3] of the IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
It was stated that the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, instructed for an inspection/raid to be conducted at diesel/petrol retail outlets by forming a team. By order dated 03-05-2017, the District Magistrate constituted an investigating team. The investigating team found that the said retail outlet was earning unfair profit by giving less quantity of diesel to consumers by breaking the wire of nozzle 2’s pulse seal which was a clear violation of the Government Order dated 05-08-2008, the U.P. High Speed and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1981, and the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply Distribution and Prevention of Malpractice) Order, 2005.
The applicant contended that it had filed a complaint before the Corporation on 03-06-2017 regarding the dispensing unit and that it could not be prosecuted for the failure of the same.
The Court stated that the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, was a special Act and perused various provisions of the same. The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal (2019) 19 SCC 740 and noted that the State failed to dispute that Sections 265 and 266 of the IPC would not apply to the case.
Further, the Court noted that the applicant had already suffered civil consequences due to the termination of the dealership agreement, but said that, since the allegations also fall within the purview of criminal law, the accused is required to be prosecuted for criminal offenses as well. The Court held that it found no legal impediment to the prosecution of the applicant under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC, along with Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Thus, the Court held that the prosecution of the applicant under Sections 265 and 266 of the IPC was not tenable under law and set aside the impugned summoning order to the extent that it summoned the applicant under the afore-mentioned Sections. However, prosecution was ordered to go on in respect of the remaining provisions. The Court also said that the accused may be charged with any other offence as considered appropriate by the Investigating Agency at a later stage during trial.
Appearances:
For Applicants – Mr. Amit Tandon, Mr. Kamlesh Shukla, Mr. Raj Mohan Saggi
For Opposite Party – G.A.
[1] Deleted provisions from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[2] Section 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[3] Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
