Allowed

Praveen Tejraj v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2021CRL.P/3119/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash the Metropolitan Magistrate's order taking cognizance under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The court observed that the complaint was filed beyond the stipulated six-month limitation period and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.09.2016 taking cognizance against the petitioners is quashed.

Praveen Tejraj Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3119 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

PRAVEEN TEJRAJ M/S MISRIMAL BHABUTHMAL & BROTHERS, NO.9, 22^ND CROSS, OPP:CANARA BANK, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶8

SUBHADIP DUTTA CHOUDHURY M/S HAWKINS COOKERS LTD., UDYOG MANDIR, NO.11, 7C PITAMBER LANE, MAHIM (W), MUMBAI - 400 016.

¶9

M/S HAWKINS COOKERS LTD., NO.C-21, U ROAD, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE, MAHARASHTRA - 400 604. REPRESENTED BY VICE CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFIER MR SHUBHADIP DUTTA CHOUDHARY.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPP,

¶14

¶15

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU, STATE BY ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, FLYING SQUAD-II, NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052.

¶16

... RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2016 PASSED BY THE M.M.T.C.-I, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.11735/2016 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 36(1) OF THE LEGAL METROLOGY ACT, 2009 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING THERETO AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE ARTICLES SEIZED FROM THE PREMISE OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 BY WAY OF THE SEIZURE MEMO DATED 30.09.2015.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the order dated 01.09.2016, by which the I Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Mayo-Hall, Bengaluru took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 in C.C.No.11735/2016.

¶22

¶23

Heard Sri.Prasanna Kumar.P., learned counsel

¶24

appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent.

¶25

The solitary submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is, the complaint is filed beyond the stipulated limitation of six months. The inspection was carried out on 30.9.2015 and the complaint is registered on 01.04.2016 which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the statute. Learned counsel would place reliance upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

¶26

MR.SRINIVASRAO VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA reported

¶27

in 2000-2018 LMLPC 1141 , wherein this Court, considering identical set of facts where the inspection was carried out on 26.12.2008 and complaint was registered on 25.06.2009 held that it is beyond the period of limitation and the proceedings stood quashed.

¶28

In the light of the mandate of the statute that the complaint should be preferred within six months from the date

¶29

¶30

of inspection and the law laid down by this Court (supra)

¶31

interpreting the said provision of law, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶34

(ii) Impugned order dated 01.09.2016 passed by the I Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Mayo-Hall, Bengaluru qua the petitioners, stands quashed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

bkp CT:MJ

Praveen Tejraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Tejraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Police Employees House Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sachin N G Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs State Rep. by Secretary

M.P. Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj. H. Hangodimutt Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Shivaganga Built Tech Vs the State of Karnataka