This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur in Criminal Appeal No. l7 (S-2) of 1989 affirming the order o. conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur in C.R.Case No 281 of 1989.

2. On 4.5.89 a Mobile Court was conducted at Tezpur town by the Judicial Magistrate and in the present case the accused-petitioner was found guilty under section 23 of the Assam Weights & Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958, for short Assam Act. The accused pleaded guilty and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs.300/-. While conducting the Mobile Court an offence report was submitted before the trial Court as the accused-petitioner was found in possession of a non-metric tailor's tap. The offence was explained and the accused pleaded guilty.

3. The lower appellate Court rejected the contention made on behalf of the accused that using of non-standard measure that is, tailor's tap can not be brought within the provisions of section 23 of the Assam Act. Lower appellate Court also rejected the contention on behalf of the accused that from the seizure list it would appear that in the tailor's tap both centimetre and inch were used and as such it can not be stated to be non-standard one. The learned lower appellate Court also considered section 375 CrPC as the accused pleaded guilty. On the above grounds, the appeal was rejected.

4. It is true that under section 375 CrPC no appeal lies, if the conviction by the Court of Sessions or Magistrate where the accused pleads guilty except as to the extent of legality of the sentence (emphasis supplied). The words "extent of legality of the sentence'' are wide enough and if it is found that the sentence was made without following the provisions of law, it is liable to be set aside.

5. I may accept here that in a Mobile Court, the procedure laid down by Criminal Procedure Code must be followed and if it is not so done, both the conviction and sentence are liable to set aside.

6. The first contention of Mr. Khetri is that the accused-petitioner was convicted under section 23 of the Assam Act for violation of section 7 of the said Act. But, Assam Act was enacted for enforcement of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1956 (Central Act 89 of 1956) but this Central Act is no longer in force and it has been repealed by Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976 (Act 6 of 1976), for short the Central Act. What Mr. Khetri wants to impress upon this Court is that as the Central Act of 1956 is no longer in existence, the Assam Act of 1958 can not be enforced.

7. Clause (f) of section 2 of the Assam Act defines "standard weight or measure", and according to the said definition, this term means in unit, mass or measure referred to in sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Central Act (Act 89 of 1956). Section 7 of the Assam Act inter alia, provides that no unit or mass or measure other than standard weights and measures shall be used in any transaction for trade or commerce in any area or classes of goods or undertakings in respect of which the Act has come into force or be kept in any premises where such transaction are usually conducted. Section 23 of the Assam Act provides for penalty. According to the said section, whoever sell or causes to be sold or deliver or causes to be delivered in case of any transaction for trade or commerce any article by any denomination of weight and measure other than one of the standards of weights and measures, shall be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/- and for the second or subsequent offence - with imprisonment for a period which may extend to 3 months or fine or both.

8. Thus it appears that the Assam Act was for enforcement of standards of weights and measures as defined in the Central Act. Though the Central Act has been repealed by the new Act of 1976, in my opinion, it would not alter the provisions of Assam Act inasmuch as, after repeal, the new Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document