Dismissed

M/S.Pavans Hall Mark Testing v. Bureau of Indian Standards

Madras HC22 Dec 2021CRL OP/26712/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The dismissal of a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against operators of a Hall Marking Unit. The court held that mere allowance of a writ petition does not justify quashing the criminal case when underlying issues regarding possession and license violation require trial court adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition to quash the complaint is dismissed; connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

M/S.Pavans Hall Mark Testing Vs Bureau of Indian… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 22/12/2021

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶4

Crl. O.P. No.26712 of 2017 a n d Crl.M.P.Nos.15378, 15379 of 2017, 4163 and 4164 of 2018

¶5

M/s. Pavans Hall Mark Testing Unit 37 Veerappan Street Sowcarpet Chennai 600 079. 2. Dhilip Kumar Proprietor 37 Veerappan Street Sowcarpet Chennai 600 079. ...Petitioners

¶6

¶7

Bureau of Indian Standards rep. By its Scientist – C Mr.M.Pradeep Kumar P.B.No.8290, CIT Campus 4^th Cross Road Taramani Chennai 600 113. ...Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.7921 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned XXVIII MM Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶9

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash C.C.No.7921 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned XXVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

2.The case of the prosecution is that petitioners are doing Hall Marking of gold jewellery/Artefacts. On 11/4/2017, Inspection Officers of the respondent, entered into Hall Marking Centre and seized gold jewels, vide, Seizure Memo, stating that the petitioners were carrying on Hallmarking activity without license, which is a violation under the Bureau of Indian Standard Rules. The gold jewellery seized by the respondent belonged to some other person, which were already hallmarked and presented only for laser marking. But the respondent refused to renew the license on the strength of the alleged seizure of gold jewellery.

¶12

Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.20849 of 2017, to quash the Proceedings of the respondent, dated 25/5/2017 and direct the respondent to process the application for granting of recognition for Hall Marking of Gold Jewellery/Artefacts, forwarded by the petitioners.

¶13

4.Vide, order, dated 4/9/2017, this Court had set aside the proceeding of the respondent and directed the respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for grant of license, afresh taking into consideration the reply submitted by them.

¶14

5.Heard Mr.R.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.C.D.Johnson, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

6.At the outset, I am unable to persuade myself to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, for the simple reason that the factum of seizure is not in dispute. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners gave a detailed explanation that the jewels belonging to M/s.Khazanchi Jewellers Private Ltd., were never brought for hall marking as they were never received by the petitioners. But according to the respondent, the petitioners were involved in hall marking of gold jewels, without valid BIS recognition and therefore, the same is in violation of Section 11 (1) of BIS Act, 1986.

¶16

7.Merely, because the writ petition was allowed, C.C.No.7921 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, cannot be quashed. The issue involved is whether the petitioners are in possession of the gold jewellery seized by the respondent and violated Section 11 (1) of BIS Act, 1986 or not. These are all the issues have to be established before the trial Court.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

8.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

mvs

¶24

¶25

XXVIII MM Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶26

Do Thro Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶27

The Public Prosecutor,

¶28

High Court, Madras.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.P.Suresh Babu, Advocate, S.R.No.69196

¶30

Crl. O.P. No.26712 of 2017

¶31

BS(CO) RGA(19/01/2022)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Pavans Hall Mark Testing v. Bureau of Indian Standards

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Pavans Hall Mark Testing v. Bureau of Indian Standards

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Durrani, M/A.50 Yrs Vs State Rep. by

S.Gajalakshmi, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Akilandeswari Vs Inspector of Police

G.Gokul, Vs State Rep by

Thiru.Jayanthilal Surana, M/a Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Emmanuvel Vasantharaj, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu