The legal principle establishes that the question of manipulation of an electronic balance must be determined through trial, not through a pre-trial quashing.

O R D E R

Accused Nos.2 to 4 in S.T No.363/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case.

2. The proceedings before the learned Magistrate arose upon a complaint filed by the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology Flying Squad, Kadappakkada, Kollam alleging that one electronic balance used in a shop by name ‘Prem Fashion Jewellery’, Paravoor, for weighing big chains and heavy ornaments at the counter of that shop, showed readings which were higher than the maximum permissible error. It was thus alleged that the aforesaid manipulation was made to deceive the customers. The petitioners 1 and 2 are said to be the firm and its Managing Director who supplied the above electronic balance to that jewellery shop owner who has been arraigned as the first accused in that case. The third petitioner herein is said to be the staff of the petitioners 1 and 2 who had delivered and installed the above electronic balance at the shop of the first accused. According to the complainant in the said case, who has been arraigned as the second respondent in this petition, the seal and stamp at the bottom portion of that electronic balance did not contain the stamp of identification of the authority who had certified that balance, though it contained a lead and wire placed similar to that of which when sealing is done. Thus, the petitioners along with the first accused, are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 44(1)(iv), 25, 26 and 47 r/w Section 2(s)(t) and Section

49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 .

3. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that they are totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against them. According to the petitioners, there was no legal requirement to have a seal on the lead and wire installed on it at the time of sale of the electronic balance. Stamping on the lead and wire system was not mandatory till 01.12.2015. The Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Thrissur had certified that stamping on the lead and wire system was not done within the area of jurisdiction of that authority, and hence the petitioners cannot be held liable for the above violation. It is further contended that when the seal and stamp on the lead and wire is not mandatory, no supplier would go to the extent of affixing a counterfeit seal and stamp in that equipment. According to the petitioners, if a counterfeit stamp of lead and wire is found on the electronic balance, the criminal liability for the aforesaid act cannot be fastened upon the petitioners.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala and the second respondent.

5. The petitioners rely on Annexure-B certificate, Annexure-C Appendix and Annexure-D minutes of a meeting convened by the Controller of Legal Metrology on 16.01.2015 in support of their contention that at the relevant time when the electronic balance seized in this case was sold to the first accused, stamping was not being done by the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology on the lead and wire system in compliance with the standing instructions from the Controller of Legal Metrology. It is true that the aforesaid documents would disclose that the stamping on lead and wire upon the instruments like the one involved in this case, was not being done in Kerala State till 05.04.2016. But, at the same time, it is to be noted that the criminal liability attributed to the petitioners herein is not merely related to the failure to ensure such stamping on the lead and wire. On the other hand, the crux of the alleg