IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1178 of 2008. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1178 of 2008. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1178 of 2008. TVS Motor Company Limited ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents Mr.K.H.Parekh a/w. Mayank Mehta i/b. Mahernosh Humranwala for the Petitioner Mr.A.R.Patil, APP for the State CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 20th June, 2008. DATED : 20th June, 2008. DATED : 20th June, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner company. 2. Rule. 3. Mr. Patil waives serve for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Notice is not required to be issued to respondent No.2 as we are allowing the petition on a very limited point. 4. The petitioner company had filed Appeal No.19 of 2008 before the Respondent No.3 praying for declaration that the company had not -2- contravened any of the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 as well as the Standard of Weights and measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and Maharashtra Standard Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1987, and the said appeal came to be dismissed ex-parte on 24.4.2008 inter alia directing the respondent No.2 to initiate prosecution against the petitioner company in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, at Bhusawal. 5. Though the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings in SCC No.694 of 2008, we will limit Rule only to the extent of prayer clause (a) and for the reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) the petitioners remedy lies somewhere else and if he has any grievance against the Order of procees or Order arising in Criminal Revision Application from such process, he will have to approach the Aurangabad Bench of this Court. 6. So far as the appeal is concerned, Mr. Patil, the learned APP on instructions fairly concedes that theappeal was already decided exparte -3- and therefore we are of the opinion that the Order dated 24.4.2008 is required to be quashed and set aside and the petitioners appeal would be restored so that it is decided after hearing all the parties concerned, and more particularly the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the proceeding SCC No.694 of 2008 is required to be kept in abeyance and in any case, continuation of the said case would be subject to the final decision in the appeal on remand. 7. Hence, the appeal is allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). Appeal No.19 of 2008 is restored to the file of the respondent No.3 and the said appeal is directed to be heard and decided on its own merits after hearing the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, but in any case before 31.8.2008. 8. Proceedings in SCC No.694 of 2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, at Bhusawal shall stand stayed till the appeal is decided or till 31.8.2008, whichever is early. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (B.H.Marlapalle, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (B.H.Marlapalle, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (B.H.Marlapalle, J.)