HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.441 OF 2005 ORDER: The first accused in STC No.24 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, who was convicted and sentenced in the said STC by the said court by its order dated 9.1.2004 preferred Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2004 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Guntur, assailing the conviction order of the trial court. However, the said appellate court considering the evidence and other material on record and also after hearing both sides came to a conclusion that no illegality could be imputed to the impugned order of conviction as passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. It is against the said dismissal order of the first appellate court, the first accused in the STC has preferred this Criminal Revision Case inter alia on the following grounds: That both the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective; that both the courts below ought to have rejected the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as they were interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined; that both the courts below failed to see that the concerned authorities did not seize the pump No. LT 1615 or any document pertaining to its ownership; that both the courts below failed to see that the concerned authorities failed to follow the procedure of seizing the pump under the cover of a panchanama in the presence of mediators as required under sub section 4 of Section of 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure and that both the courts below failed to see that the ingredients of the statutory provisions under which the revision petitioner- accused along with two others were charged, were not made out. 2. The facts in brief are that on 19.4.2002, PW.1, Assistant Controller of the Legal Metrology Flying Squad Unit inspected the trading premises of M/s. Reliance Petroleum IBP located at Mangalore bypass road at about 10.15 p.m. and five dispensing pumps were noticed and out of which four were high speed diesel dispensing pumps and the other was motor spirit dispensing pump; that two of them were found delivering correct measures and the other two found giving short delivery of 150 ml each for every five litres and the motor spirit dispensing pump was also found giving short delivery of 40 ml for every five litres. A2-Manager and A3 salesman-cum- casher could not furnish proper information. That on suspicious they checked the pumps and found that they were meddling with some device to increase or decrease the delivery of the product; that they sealed three pumps and affixed signed labels to them under cover of Ex.P.1-panchanama. Thereafter, PW1, the District Inspector filed complaint before the court against the revision petitioner-accused under Sections 25, 37 (1) (vii), 38(i), 39 (i), 39 (2) (ii) and 60 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules 8 and 23 framed thereunder. 3. On their pleading not guilty, the revision petitioner-A1 was tried for the aforesaid offences. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, had examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 on its behalf. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and other material on record, found the revision petitioner-A1 guilty for the offences under Sections 37 (1) (vii), 38(1) and 39(2) (i) read with Section 63 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 37 (1) (viii) of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 38(1) of the Act and A1 is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 39(2) (i) read with Section 63 of the Act and directed all the sentences to run concurrently. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-A1 raised the self same grounds as he raised in the grounds of revision. It is further contended that the petroleum pump was situated in a busy locality and the concerned authorities ought to have conducted the proceedings under a panchanama in the presence of independent witnesses of the locality. It is also contended that since PWs 1 and 2 are the officials of the concerned departments and since they are interested witnesses, the trial court ought not to have considered their evidence for the purpose of convicting the revision petitioner-A1. 7. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent-complainant that though searched for independent witnesses to act as mediators, they could not find and as such they prepared Ex.P.1-panchanama and the same fact was informed to A.3. Therefore, no fault could be found therewith. The trial court considering the said fact and also taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, found the revision petitioner guilty for the offences as referred above, brushing aside the contention of the revision petitioner that the procedure as contemplated under sub section 4 of Section 100 Cr.P.C. was not followed. 8. Having regard to the evidence on record and the submissions made by both sides, it is to be seen that the panchanama was prepared by the PW.2-District Inspector without securing the presence of the independent witnesses as mediators. The prosecution has not followed the procedure as contemplated under sub-section 4 of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. Since PWs 1 and 2 are official witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied on in the absence of corroboration by any independent witness. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the petrol pump is located at Mangalagiri by-pass road, which is busy locality, whereas it is the case of the prosecution that as no independent witnesses were available at relevant time to act as mediators, they searched and sealed three pumps under the cover of Ex.P.1- Panchanama. In such a scenario, the prosecution has to prove that the petrol pump is situated at remote area and it could not able to secure the independent witnesses. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution has not complied with the statutory provisions sub section 4 of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. and on this premise, the impugned order convicting and sentencing the accused is liable to be set-aside. 9. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order passed by the trial court and as confirmed by the first appellate court convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 37 (1) (vii), 38(1) and 39(2) (i) read with Section 63 of the Act is set-aside and accordingly, the revision petitioner is acquitted of the said charges. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 11-04-2011 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.441 OF 2005 11-04-2011