1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 617 OF 2009 Mr. Anand Mahindra Versus Mr. Santosh N. Dalal and others *** Mr. Shirish Gupte, Advocate i/b Mr. Anil S. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned senior counsel and learned A.P.P. 2. Rule, by consent of parties, rule is heard finally. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the applicant herein vide S.C.C. 373 of 2008 based on the complaint lodged by Respondent Deputy Controller / Inspector of Legal Metrology, Chalisgaon Division. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon, based on the complaint, issued process under section 6 (1) and 23 (7) of Standards of Weight and Measurement (Enforcement) Act, 1985, by order dated 9th April, 2008. It is this order of issuance of the process by the learned Judge, subject of the decision under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The crux of the matter centers to the address of the manufacturer as indicated in the complaint or notice dated 24th October, 2007. The address referred is "Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Apollo Bunder, Mumbai - 400 001" and the quantity number is incorporated. It is the matter of record, the summons or the notice of the proceedings to the applicant herein were served 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. with the same address and as detailed therein. In the situation, it is difficult to digest that the address referred above could in any way be incomplete address inviting infraction of any of the penal provisions of the Act. Then comes the price labels being changed on the items/ boxes which were taken charge. During the course of submissions, senior counsel informed the dealer compounded the matter to the extent of change of the price or the stickers thereon as it was done at his behest and he has been suitably fined by the learned J.M.F.C. 5. In view of this situation, there cannot be a case of abatement or any infraction at the instance of the accused/ applicant herein. Whatever has been done, it was at the level of the dealer for which the manufacturer like the applicant, cannot be held responsible. The proceedings initiated against the accused/ applicant before the learned J.M.F.C. by the Inspector of Department of Metrology under Standard of Weight and Measurement [Enforcement] Act, 1985 appears clearly to be contrary to the settled position of law and will be tantamounting to the abuse of process of law. The proceedings against the application [S.C.C. No.373 of 2008] are quashed and set aside. Rule absolute accordingly. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:18/08/2009. ans/617