In a summary proceedings in C. R. Case No. 280 of 1989, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Tezpur convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for 30 days. In addition, the learned Magistrate passed order confiscating the seized articles belonging to the petitioner. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as disclosed from the record is that the petitioner was found selling ready-made garments (pants) in packets without mentioning the size of the pants and without showing name of the manufacturer and inserting the price of the pieces of the garment by the petitioner himself. After the petitioner was produced before him, the learned Magistrate asked the petitioner whether it was a fact that he was found selling the articles in packets without the name or of the manufacturer and by fixing the price by himself. The petitioner answered in the affirmative. On the basis of admission, learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under section 39 of the Package Commodities Act Rules (sic) by the order dated 4.5.89 passed in C.R. Case No.280 of 1989 and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1500/-. Learned Magistrate also ordered that the seized goods should be confiscated.

2. Mr.Khetri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such Act or Rules known as 'Package Commodities Act/Rules'. Apparently, the learned Magistrate committed mistake. From the materials on records it is apparent that petitioner was prosecuted and convicted under section 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act' for alleged contravention of the provisions of section 39 of the Act. Petitioner impugned the judgment of conviction and sentence in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 18 (S-2) of 1989, questioning the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to initiate the proceedings. The petitioner's contention was that he did not contravene the provisions of section 39 of the Act attracting penalty under section 63 of the Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, held that since the petitioner did not state either before the Magistrate or in the appeal that the articles were manufactured within the State of Assam and the same were not purchased from other States, it was apparent that articles were sold or intended to be sold in course of inter-State trade or commerce and for contr­avention of the provisions of section 39 of the Act, the petitioner was rightly convicted. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court in this revision petition.

3. I have heard Mr.T.C. Khetri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor. Mr.Khetri submits that section 39 is applicable only when commodities in packaged form are intended to be sold or distributed in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. There is neither any material nor any allegation that the articles alleged to have been sold in packets by the petitioner were in packaged form and were sold or inten­ded to be sold inter-State trade or commerce and that in the absence of any allegation far less materials, the garments sold by the petitioner were in packaged form and were sold or intended to be sold in inter-State trade and/ or commerce, initiation of the proceeding under section 63 of the Act is wholly illegal without jurisdiction and misconceived and the impugned orders passed against the petitioner are equally without jurisdiction, inoperative and void. Consequently, the impugned order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside and that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the fine paid by him and to get back of the articles ordered to be confiscated.

4. Mr.D.Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that as the articles were sold in packets and there was nothing to show that articles were manufactured in Assam, and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document