The judgment established the principle that officers authorized by agreements and official directions have the right to inspect and investigate, and that allowing a proceeding to continue in such cases would amount to an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

This petition was heard and judgment was reserved on 03.10.2023.

2. This matter has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of G.O. No.159/ 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 19.08.2014 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

3. The offence report was filed alleging therein that the petitioners herein have obstructed government work and used uncalibrated and unrecognized measure and also found holding secondary standard measure. It is further alleged that they were found locking the pump after inspecting the pump and was found working beyond their power and authority and it is further alleged that they were illegally using the power of weight and measure. The seizure list prepared on 16.07.2014 which is part of the offence report states that the petitioners were found checking the pump by using 5-litre measure and further found closing the closed pump. It is stated that under section 15(1) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, the petitioners have no power to check the pump and therefore they have violated the provisions and have committed offence.

4. Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance by order dated 19.08.2014 under section 33 and 40 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Rule 25 of the Jharkhand Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rule, 2011 and Rule 27 and 30 of Legal Metrology (National Standards) Rules, 2011 against the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He submitted that the petitioners have never violated any such provisions under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the rules made thereunder. He submitted that the petitioners are the officials of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited[BPCL] which is a Public Sector Oil Company engaged in refining of crude oil and marketing of various petroleum products, such as petrol/ Motor Spirit(MS), Diesel (HSD), Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), ATF, Naphtha, LDO, SKO, Lubricants etc. M/s BPCL purchases/takes on lease the land for construction of retail outlets and installs Pumps and Tanks, canopy etc. on such land at its costs for establishment of its retain petroleum outlets to sell its petroleum products, which are covered under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He submitted that for that an agreement was being made between the company and the out-let and the terms and conditions are prescribed under the said dealership agreement and clause-10(o) provides power to investigate the petrol pumps by the officials of the company. He further submitted that after closure of Anti Adulteration Cell, Government of India, through its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas issued official direction/ guidelines vide letter No.P-21027/15/2004 dated 06.10.2004 directing the public sector undertaking (PSU) Oil Companies to create a Quality Control Wing and primary responsibility and accountability for the quality and quantity of petroleum products sold through their network. In view of that, the B.P.C.L also established their own Quality Control Wing and the petitioners herein are the officers of the quality control cell (wing) of the said company. He further submitted that Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 vide order dated 19.12.2005, amended the old Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation and Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998, and replaced the same with new one which is known as Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005. He further submitted that section 2(f) of the said Order, 2005, defines “Malpractice” which includes short delivery. He further submitted that section 7 of the said Order, 2005 empowers any officer