2019 (9) TMI 1632 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court partly allows appeals, quashing some charges under IPC, permits further investigation.

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court's directions but upholding the quashing of charges under IPC Sections 265 and 267. ... Interpretation of statute - Indian Penal Code - doctrine of harmonious construction - whether all the offences under Indian Penal Code are excluded in view of Section 3 of the Act or only the offences relating to the weights and measures as are contained in Chapter XIII Indian Penal Code alone stand excluded in view of Section 51 of the Act? HELD THAT:- It cannot be disputed that the Act is a special Act vis-à-vis Indian Penal Code. In MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED VERSUS SHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. [2017 (12) TMI 850 - SUPREME COURT], this Court adopted a doctrine of harmonious construction to hold that there was clear disharmony between the two parliamentary statutes which cannot be resolved by harmonious interpretation. Section 3 of the Act completely overrides the provisions of Chapter XIII of Indian Penal Code in respect of the offences and penalties imposable for violations of the provisions of the Act, it being special Act. Therefore, if the offence is disclosed to be made out under the provisions of the Act, an Accused cannot be charged for the same offence under Chapter XIII of Indian Penal Code. Reading of Section 51 of the Act makes it clear that the provisions of Indian Penal Code insofar as they relate to offences with regard to weight or measure, shall not apply to any offence which is punishable under the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Indian Penal Code which relate to offences with regard to weight and measure as contained in Chapter XIII of Indian Penal Code alone will not apply. No person can be charged for an offence relating to weight or measure falling under Chapter XIII of Indian Penal Code in view of the provisions of the Act - the scheme of the Act is for the offences for use of weights and measures which are non-standard and for tampering with or altering any standards, secondary standards or working standards of any weight or measure. The Act does not foresee any offence relating to cheating as defined in Section 415 of Indian Penal Code or the offences Under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Similarly, an act performed in furtherance of a common intention disclosing an offence Under Section 34 is not covered by the provisions of the Act. An offence disclosing a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence which is punishable Under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code is also not an offence under the Act. Since such offences are not punishable under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the prosecution for such offences could be maintained since the trial of such offences is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. Similar is the provision in respect of the offences Under Sections 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code as such offences are not covered by the provisions of the Act - appeal allowed in part. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in light of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.2. Overriding effect of the Legal Metrology Act and the Essential Commodities Act over CrPC provisions.3. Legality of the investigation conducted by the Special Task Force (STF).4. Validity of the trial court's cognizance of offences.5. Directions and directives necessary for the case.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of IPC and CrPC in Light of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009:The High Court examined whether the offences related to weights and measures, particularly short delivery of petroleum products, could be investigated under IPC and CrPC or if these provisions were overridden by Section 51 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The court concluded that:- The Code is applicable unless a special law prescribes a different procedure.- All offences under the Legal Metrology Act, except Section 26, are non-cognizable and compoundable when committed for the first time.- Section 26 overrides IPC Sections 264 to 267 as Section 51 of the Act excludes IPC's application in weights and measures offences.2. Overriding Effect of Legal Metrology Act and Essential Commodities Act:The High Court held that:- Section 26 of the Legal Metrology Act overrides IPC Sections 264 to 267.- The Special Act replaces the entire Chapter XIII of IPC by defining and classifying offences as non-cognizable and compoundable.- The trial court could take cognizance of offences under IPC Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34, as these are not covered by the Legal Metrology Act.3. Legality of the Investigation Conducted by STF:The High Court directed:- The District Judge, Lucknow, to ascertain the residual stock in underground tanks and deliver it to the oil company after calibration.- The change of the Investigating Officer and involvement of the District Judge in the investigation process.However, the Supreme Court found these directions beyond the scope of Section 482 of CrPC, citing the judgment in M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, which states that investigation is the exclusive domain of the police.4. Validity of the Trial Court's Cognizance of Offences:The High Court's decision to quash charges under IPC Sections 265 and 267 was upheld, but it was held that:- The trial court's cognizance of offences under IPC Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 was valid as these are not covered by the Legal Metrology Act.- The Special Act does not exclude all IPC offences, only those related to weights and measures as specified in Chapter XIII of IPC.5. Directions and Directives Necessary for the Case:The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's directions involving the District Judge and the change of the Investigating Officer, stating these were beyond the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. The Court allowed the investigating agency to charge the accused for other offences through a supplementary report or during trial.Conclusion:The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court's directions but upholding the quashing of charges under IPC Sections 265 and 267. The investigating agency was permitted to continue its investigation and charge the accused for other offences as deemed appropriate.