IMPORTANT POINT
The authority to conduct searches and seizures must be legally conferred; actions taken without such authority are invalid.

JUDGMENT :

This criminal revision petition is preferred impugning the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara in Crl.Appeal No.476/2011. As per the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence in S.T.No.251/2007.

2. The petitioner is the 1^st accused in S.T.No.251/2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam. The offences alleged against the accused were under Sections 29, 31 r/w 49 and 50 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.

3. The 1^st respondent, the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology (Flying Squad), Alappuzha, filed a complaint before the Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam alleging that accused nos.1 to 4 obstructed the process of seizure of the articles from a shop owned by the revision petitioner/accused namely, ‘M/s.Dubai Duty Paid Shop’, and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 49 and 50 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act]

4. The trial court, after a full fledged trial, convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner/1^st accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and acquitted accused nos.2 and 4.

5. Impugning the said order of the Magistrate, the revision petitioner/1st accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.476/2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara dismissed the appeal.

6. The Adv.Renjith George, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara and submitted that, no interference is warranted in this matter.

7. Per contra, Adv.A.Shafeek Kayamkulam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that the trial court and the appellate court have failed to appreciate the questions of fact and law in this regard in the correct perspective.

8. The first submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that, the trial court and the appellate court had failed to note that, under Section 30 of the Act, the complainant had no independent right to seize any article from the shop run by the revision petitioner/1st accused. If the ‘Act’ does not confer the power of seizure by the complainant, the search, if any, conducted by the complainant itself is illegal. If the complainant has no right to conduct a seizure then he cannot even make a complaint to the Court or any authority with regard to the obstruction which was allegedly caused in consequence of his illegal act.

9. The second submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that, both the trial court and the appellate court had failed to consider the fact that, the criminal case registered by the police under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the alleged inspection and seizure and the obstruction of duty caused to the complainant, culminated in acquittal as per the order in Crl.Appeal No.210/2009.

10. It is further submitted that, in Crl.Appeal No.210/2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc), Mavelikkara observed that the complainant herein, PW1, had no power to seize the articles from the shop run by the revision petitioner and he has exercised the powers without any legal authority. It is further submitted that, since the complainant conducted the inspection and seizure of the articles from the shop run by the petitioner itself is illegal, and a colourable exercise of his powers, he has no locus standi to file a complaint before the learned Magistrate. The trial court and the appellate court had failed to notice the aforementioned illegalities and infirmities while convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner/accused.

11. Before further discussion, it may be useful to extract the relevant provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Co