IMPORTANT POINT
Complaints under the Legal Metrology Act must contain specific allegations; vague complaints do not meet the standards for sustaining prosecution.

ORDER :

1. Petitioners are seeking to quash Annexure-A1 complaint filed by the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology, Manjeri against them before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Manjeri and consequential proceedings in S.T. No. 152/2019.

2. On 08.11.2018, the Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology conducted a surprise inspection in the premises of Muthoot Fin Corp. Ltd. Manjeri branch. It was found that weight of the ornament pledged by one Smt. Shahida T. was recorded incorrectly in the pledge card. The ornament was a bangle having a total weight of 8.300 grams. However, the bangle was described in the pledge card as below:

3. According to the Senior Inspector, since the bangle did not contain any stones, pearls or the like, the gross weight and net weight of the ornament shall be the same. Annexure-A1 complaint was therefore filed alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 15 and 30 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. It is alleged in the complaint that since the net weight of the ornament was recorded only as 8.000 grams approximately, the firm had the responsibility to return only 8.000 grams to the consumer after the pledge period. In fact, the firm had the responsibility to return 8.300 grams. Also, in case the ornament is lost due to any circumstances, the consumer could claim only the net weight recorded in the pledge card. The authority alleged that the above said action of the Petitioners constitutes an offence under Section 30 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. It was also alleged that the firm did not produce the name and address of the partners/directors/proprietors, as the case may be, even on demand and therefore the offence under Section 15, punishable under Section 31 was also attracted.

4. Petitioners approached this Court raising various grounds in support of the prayer to quash the complaint and further proceedings. Stay of further proceedings was granted by this Court by order dated 16.1.2020 for a period of two weeks. The same order was extended from time to time and therefore no further proceedings have happened before the trial court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Alex M. Scaria submitted that the offences alleged in Annexure-A1 complaint are not sustainable. He contended that the complaint is actually misdirected and frivolous. Regarding the alleged offences, he submitted that neither the offence under Section 30 nor the offence under Section 15 read with 31 would lie against the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that none of the clauses under Section 30 of the Act will be attracted when an ornament is pledged and loan is obtained. He elaborated his contention by arguing that no sale or transfer of an article is involved when an ornament is pledged. He submitted that pledge is a bailment under Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Referring to Section 172 of the Indian Contract Act, he submitted that pledge is defined as bailment of goods as security for payment of a debt or performance of a promise. He therefore submitted that in the peculiar nature of pledge, the transaction would not fall within any of the sub-clauses of Section 30 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. He argued that weight of the ornament pledged has relevance only in the matter of identifying the ornament. According to him, when a pledge is made, it is not obligatory on the part of the pawnee to make payment in proportion to the weight of the ornament. Correspondingly the pawnor cannot claim any fixed amount on the basis of the weight of the ornament. Therefore, weight of the ornament has only limited significance when it is pledged and loan is obtained. He also pointed out that the authority has no case that the gross weight was not mentioned in the pledge card. He hence contended that, when the ornament is returned on closure of the transact