2011 (4) TMI 345 - SC - Indian Laws

Rules 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 had been violated - It was pointed out that in the complaint the bare language of Section 74 had been reproduced without naming any body as being responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Company - It has to be borne in mind that in prosecutions in such like cases no roving enquiry is permissible and an obligation rests on the prosecution to give details so that the persons responsible so that the trial can proceed against them - Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 - Rules 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 23 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. Identifying the person responsible for day-to-day affairs of the Company in a complaint under Section 19 of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case involving the violation of Rules 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The matter originated from a complaint filed under Section 19 of the Act, alleging multiple offenses by a Company. The appellant sought compounding of the offense, which was initially directed but later hindered due to the Company's repeated offenses within three years. An application under Section 482 was filed challenging the complaint's validity, highlighting the absence of specific identification of the person responsible for the Company's day-to-day affairs.

The High Court, after evaluating the arguments, quashed the proceedings against the Chairman of the Company, emphasizing the lack of specific averments regarding his role and responsibilities in the alleged offenses. The High Court's decision was based on the insufficiency of evidence linking the Chairman to the day-to-day affairs of the Company during the offense. Subsequently, the appellant argued for a similar outcome, contending that no distinction existed between the Chairman and himself.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued for parity in treatment between the Chairman and the appellant, stressing the need for specific details to proceed with prosecutions in such cases. The respondent's counsel, however, emphasized the evidentiary requirement to establish the identity of individuals in charge of the Company's day-to-day operations. The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, found no differentiation between the Chairman and the appellant, stressing the prosecution's obligation to provide precise details for a fair trial.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, overturning the High Court's decision against the appellant. The Court directed the quashing of proceedings against the appellant in alignment with the Chairman's outcome, emphasizing the necessity of specific identification of responsible individuals in complaints related to violations under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976.