The main legal point established in the judgment is that the storage tank in question was not considered a weighing and measuring instrument under the Standards of Weights and Measurement (Enforcement) Act, 1985, and therefore, the petitioners had not violated the relevant provisions of the Act.

Prashant Kumar, J.––This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. WM 214/05 including the order dated 05.08.2000 whereby and where under learned court below took cognizance against petitioner nos. 2 and 3, namely, Sri A.C. Sen, and Sri Swapan Kumar Mondal, respectively under sections 45 and 47 of the Standards of Weights and Measurement (Enforcement) Act, 1985( herein after referred as the Act of 1985)

2. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner no.1 is an undertaking of Govt. of India, engaged in refining and distribution of petroleum products all over the country and petitioner no.2 and 3 namely, A.C. Sen and Swapan Kumar Mondal respectively, are senior officials of petitioner no.1. It is further stated that petitioners received a letter dated 23.12.1999 under the signature of Inspector (Weights and Measurement) asking the petitioners to produce blue prints, structural drawings, fabrications drawings etc. of the storage tank situated at Dhanbad depot of petitioner no.1, because the said storage tanks have not been calibrated. It is stated that petitioners filed Annexure-4 and sent their reply (Annexure-4) to the aforesaid letter, wherein they stated that storage tanks at their Dhanbad Depot were not used for the sale of its product to the customers or consumers, as such storage tanks cannot be treated as an instrument of measurement. It is further stated that petitioners are selling and supplying the petroleum products through tank lorries. It is further stated that the petroleum products filled in tank lorries are measured by calibrated Dip-Rods and the same are verified and stamped by Metrology Department. It is stated that again Controller, Weights and Measurement Department, Bihar Patna sent a letter to the petitioners that as per Section 24(1) of the Act, of 1985, it is mandatory for the petitioner corporation to get the storage tanks duly verified by the respondents, otherwise petitioners will be prosecuted. Again petitioners wrote a letter to the respondents that storage tanks in their depot were used as storage vessel for the products received from the refineries etc. and the mode of delivery of petroleum products to the ultimate consumers or retail outlets is through tank lorries, which kept calibrated Dip Rod duly verified and stamped by the Weights and Measurement Department.. Accordingly, it is stated that storage tanks are not an instrument of measurement, therefore, do not come within the purview of Section 24(1) of the Act of 1985. It is stated that inspite of aforesaid reply, respondents asked the petitioners to deposit Rs. 44,520/- through Bank Draft in favour of Controller of Legal Metrology, Bihar Patna, for the purpose of calibration of storage tanks situated at its Dhanbad Depot. It is then stated that when petitioners did not deposit aforesaid amount, respondents filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate , Patna vide Complaint Case no. 1417(M)/2000 on 30.8.2000 alleging therein that inspite of repeated direction, reminder and verification reports, petitioners were using the uncalibrated, unverified and unstamped storage tanks, which is violative of Section 22 and 24 of the Act of 1985 and therefore, they are liable to be punished under section 45 and 47 of the Act of 1985. It is stated that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide his order dated 05.8.2000 took cognizance of the offences under sections 45 and 47 of the Act of 1985 against the petitioners. It is stated that after coming into force of Bihar Reorganisation Act, aforesaid case transferred to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which was renumbered as Case no. WM 214/2005 and the same was transferred in the court of Sri Shwyambhu, Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Dhanbad, who vide his order dated 24.11.2005 explained the substance of acquisition to the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, to which they pleaded not guilty and pray