The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a clear and categorical statement in the complaint petition to proceed against an officer of the company to determine vicarious liability for the offence committed by the company, and the necessity of judicial scrutiny even if sanction is granted.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order dated 24.08.2013 passed in connection with W.M. Case No. 34 of 2013 whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 31, 33, 38 and 42 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro.

3. The complaint has been filed alleging therein that the accused persons were in possession and use of the seized Digital Rail In-motion Weigh Bridge (made in China) and Maximum capacity-Minimum capacity, e-value class (accuracy) etc, Model not mentioned, whose number is XK3105C, without certification and stamping, for failure to produce the documents on notice, for non availability of approval of model and for keeping Weights and Measures equipment without import licence.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the enclosure to the said complaint a Memo dated 30.03.2013 has been filed wherein it has been reported that uncertified, unstamped and Metlertoledo China made in Motion Automatic Weigh Bridge was found installed and in this connection documents relating to approval of Model and Registration of importer of Weights and Measure was demanded but they were unable to produce, that is allegation. He further submits that Weights and Measure equipment was seized and seizure certificate was handed over vide certificate no. 0101 dated 14.02.2013. He submits that approval for filing the alleged complaint case was granted by the controller vide his communication no. 229 dated 18.06.2013. He further submits that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence. He further submits that the petitioner no. 1 is former Managing Director of Electosteel Steel Limited, petitioner no. 2 is former director of Electrosteel Steel of the said company, petitioner no. 3 is the Chief Instrumentation and Automation and petitioner no. 4 is senior engineer of Instrumentation and Automation of the said company. He further submits that in view of section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 only the person who is looking day to day affairs of the company can be charged. He submits that in the entire complaint there is no averment so far as these petitioners are concerned that they were responsible for the business of the company. He further submits that company has not been made accused in the present case and in absence of company the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State submits that there is violation of the provision that is why the case has been lodged and the learned court has taken cognizance.

6. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the court has gone through the contents of complaint, order taking cognizance and sanction order contained in Annexure-4 and finds that in the complaint petition the company M/s Electrosteel Steel Limited has not been made accused. For correct appreciation of the case Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 is quoted hereinbelow:-

“49. Offences by companies and power of court to publish name, place of business, etc., for companies convicted.-

(1) “Where an offence under this Act has been committed by the company,-

(a). (i) the person, if any, who has been nominated under subsection (2) to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company and;

(ii) where no person has been nominated, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company

(b) the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly”

2. Any company m