Table of Content
1. procedural history and the nature of compoundable offences under the legal metrology act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. judicial error in misinterpreting a request for compounding as a guilty plea. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. setting aside conviction and permitting compounding upon payment of enhanced fine. (Para 10)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 21.04.2025 ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA IN CC NO.1655/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.126/2025 ANNEXUED AS ANNEXURE-E.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

After arguing for considerable time, learned Senior counsel Sri Murthy D. Naik, representing the petitioner at the instructions of the briefing counsel files a memo, which reads as under:

“The undersigned counsel for the Petitioner's most humbly submits that the Petitioner's hereby accept to deposit additional INR 50,000/- (Indian Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards the compounding fee with the Respondent No.1 authority as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court today, within such time as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court. The present memo may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Memo is placed on record. Perused the records.

3. Petitioner is alleged of the offences punishable under Section 36 and 49 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

4. Admittedly, both the offences were compoundable in nature.

5. Petitioner herein being the accused of those offences, made his intentions clear before the Trial Magistrate and filed an application seeking permission to compound the offences.

6. Since the offences were compoundable in nature, as a rule, such benefit should have been granted to the petitioner herein. Instead, the learned Trial Magistrate misconstrued the intention of the complainant to compound the offences thought that the accused is pleading guilty and convicted the accused even after taking the fine of Rs.50,000/-.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the First Appellate Court.

8. First Appellate Court, instead of exercising the appellate powers in a proper manner, also failed to understand the nature of the order that has been passed by the learned Trial Magistrate, wherein grave injustice has been occurred inasmuch as the intention of the revision petitioner who was the accused was to compound the offences, but Trial Magistrate has misconstrued the same as pleading guilty, shirked his responsibility and dismissed the appeal on technical reasons that there cannot be an appeal against the order passed while accused has pleaded guilty.

9. These errors committed at the level of Trial magistrate and learned judge in the First Appellate Court, constrained the revision petitioner to approach this Court with the present revision petition.

10. Having heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel - Sri Murty D. Nayak and Sri Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government pleader, this Court is of the considered opinion that damage that has occurred on account of the act attributable to the revision petitioner, already sum of Rs.50,000/- is paid as fine amount. As such, enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- as is indicated in the memo referred to supra, if the petitioner is permitted to compound the offences, ends of justice would be met.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) Revision petition is allowed.

(ii) Consequently, the order of conviction passed by the Trial Magistrate in C.C.No.1655/2021, cinfirmed in Crl.A.No.126/2025 is hereby set aside by accepting the enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, the petitioner is permitted to compound the offences which were alleged in CC No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document