1. Under challenge in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the legality and sustainability of the prosecution initiated against the petitioner under S. 420 of the IPC in crime No.964 of 2012 registered on 27.9.2012 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kondotty police station, Malappuram District.

2. The essential facts are as follows :-

The petitioner is the authorized dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and he operates a retail outlet by name "CEE PEE FUELS" at Kondotty. On 27.9.2012, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, (EOW-III), Kozhikode, carried out an inspection of the retail outlet at the behest of the Superintendent of Police CBCID (EOW -III). The officers of the Legal Metrology Department, were present when the inspection was conducted. Inspection revealed that there was short delivery of fuel from the dispensing units. In other words fuel dispensed from the units were of lesser quantity than what was to be actually delivered. Annexure A report was prepared on 27.9.2012 in which it is seen stated that the customers were being cheated by the petitioner by dispensing lesser quantity of fuel. The said report was forwarded to the Sub Inspector of police, Kondotty police station and on its receipt the said officer has registered the said crime under S.420 of the IPC.

3. Sri. P. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on various provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, has submitted that the Act and the Rules framed there under was enacted to enforce the sale of goods which are sold or distributed by weight, measure or number. According to him, the Act is self contained and S. 51 of the Act 1 of 2009 makes it amply clear that provisions of the Indian Penal Code and S 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in so far as such provisions relate to weights or measures, shall not apply to any offense punishable under the Act. He targeted Annexure- B FIR with all the fusillades in his armoury and submitted that the registration of the FIR is against law as substantial provisions are engrafted in the special Act to specifically deal with incidence of violations.

4. Per contra, Smt. M. Madhuben, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that inspection was carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police based on information and he was accompanied by the Officers of the Legal Metrology Department. Inviting the attention of the Court to Annexure-A, it was pointed out that the measurement was taken by the Superintendent of police with the assistance of officers of the Legal Metrology Department with appropriate measuring vessels and as it was found that the petitioner was dispensing fuel of a lesser quantity, the offence u/s 420 was squarely attracted. There is no reason for invoking extraordinary powers u/s 482 to interfere with the matter and to quash the proceedings, is the essence of the submission.

5. Admittedly, inspection was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of police and it was the said officer who had carried out the measurement of fuel from the dispensing unit. Though the officers attached to the legal Metrology Department were present along with the said officer, they have not carried out the inspection in compliance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules. As is revealed from Annexure-II FIR, the inspecting officer furnished a report to the Sub Inspector directing initiation of appropriate action and it is on its basis that the crime was registered.

6. Question is whether the same can be sustained. To appreciate the rival contentions, it will be apposite to take a glance at the relevant Act and its provisions.

7. S. 153 of the Code empowers an officer in charge of a police station to enter any place without a warrant within his station limits for the purpose of inspecting or searching for any weights or measures or instruments for weighing, used or kept therein, whenever he has reason to believe that there ar