This is an appeal by the State under S. 378, Cr.P.C. against the judgment dt. 17-4-1982 in S.T.C. No. 1140/81 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, finding that the accused-respondent herein is not guilty under S. 7(i) of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1958 (Madras Act XX of 1958) read with R. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules 1967 and acquitting her under S. 255(1), Cr.P.C.


2. The complaint was filed before the lower Court by the Assistant Inspector of Labour, First Circle, Coimbatore, against the accused Kamala Balasubramanian. The accused carries on trade, "Karthic Enterprises" at No. 9/86, Rangakonar Street, Coimbatore. On an inspection of the trading premises of the accused by the complainant at 4.15 p.m. on 19-6-1981, the non-standard units viz., Free Mans - Fleximeasure 3 metre tape dual graduated 1, was found in her possession for use for transaction in trade, thereby contravening the provisions of S. 7(1)(a) read with R. 7 of the said Act and Rules. So the accused is liable for punishment under S. 23 of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty before the lower court.


3. On behalf of the complainant, P.W. 1 Rajarathinam, Assistant Inspector of Labour, First Circle, Coimbatore, was examined, Ex. P.1 receipt bearing No. 57, Ex. P.2 copy of the notice Ex. P.3 postal acknowledgment, Ex. P.4 reply sent by the accused and EX. P.5 sanction for prosecution were filed on behalf of the complainant. On behalf of the accused, D.W. 1 Kalidas, the clerk employed in the shop of the accused was examined. Ex. D.1 delivery note bearing No. 1212 dt. 17-6-1981 was filed before the lower court on behalf of the accused. M.O. 1 Free Mans Flexi measure tape was produced before the lower court.


4. When P.W. 1 inspected the shop belonging to the accused at 4.15 p.m. on 19-6-1981, the accused was not available in the shop. D.W. 1 Kalidas was in the shop. At the time of the inspection, a tape M.O. 1 graduated on one side with inch measurement and the other side with Centimetre measurement known as Free Mans - Flexi measure was seized from the shop. The said M.O. 1 was seized under Ex. P.1 receipt bearing No. 57. Delivery bill bearing No. 1212 dt. 17-6-1981 was containing measurements both in Metres as well as in Feet. Notice was given to the accused on 29-6-1981 asking her as to why proceedings should not be taken against her. Ex. P.2 is the copy of the said notice. The original of the said notice had been received by the accused on 16-7-1981. Ex. P.3 is the postal acknowledgment. On 19-6-1981, the accused gave Ex. P.2 reply. The said reply was not satisfactory. So the complainant had filed the complaint against the accused under S. 7(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XX of 1958) read with R. 7 of Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules 1967 and S. 23 of the Act.


5. When the accused was questioned under the provisions of S. 313, Cr.P.C., she denied the offence. She had also stated that in her shop, the goods are only weighed with kilogram measurement.


6. On behalf of the accused, D.W. 1 Kalidas was examined. He deposed that in the shop belonging to the accused, the articles required for wood carpentry work were sold only in weights to the customers. He had also stated that it is for the convenience of the carpenters, M.O. 1 was kept in the shop. In the bill, the weight is noted both in Feet as well as in Metres. Ex. D.1 is the copy of delivery note bearing No. 1212 dt. 17-6-1981. It is mentioned therein that the weight of the article is 3 Kg. and 400 grams.


7. On the question whether the accused had kept any weights or measures contravening the provisions of S. 7(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1958 and R. 7 of Tamil Nadu Weights & Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1967, the lower court held that the complainant had not proved his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.


8. Aggrieved by the decision of the lower Court, the State has preferred this appeal. The learned public prosecutor contends that the lower court had not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and as such the acquittal of the accused is not correct.


9. The point for consideration in this appeal is


Whether the complainant has proved his case against the accused-respondent herein beyond all reasonable doubt ?


10. S. 7(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1958 reads as follows.


"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or practice


(a) no unit of mass or measure, other than the standard weight or measure, shall be used in any transaction for trade, business or commerce" *


11. Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 reads as follows.


"Whoever, after the expiry of three months from the commencement of this section, sells or causes to be sold or delivers or causes to be delivered in the course of any transaction for trade, business or commerce, any article by any denomination of weight or measure other than that of the standard weight or measure shall be punishable, for a first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and for a second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both" *


12. Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1967 reads as follows

"Commercial weights and measures Commercial weights and measures of length and capacity shall conform as regards denominations, material used in construction design to the specifications laid down in schedule IV.


Provided that (i) the scripts to be used in marking the denominations of Commercial Weights and Measures of length and capacity and the name or trade mark of the manufacturer"


" shall be - (a) The Tamil script; and (b) the Roman script or the Devanagari script;


(ii) the numerals used shall be international form of Indian numerals;


(iii) the existing stock of tape measures shall be verified and stamped until 30th September 1967, subject to the conditions that every such tape is accurately graduated in metric units of m.c.m. and m.m. and is within the prescribed limits of error, irrespective of the fact that it may or may not comply with all the other requirements laid down in that respect in these rules" *


13. On behalf of the accused, it is seen that the seizure of M.O. 1 from the shop of the accused on 19-6-1981 is admitted. M.O. 1 bears on one side measurement in Inches and Feet and on the other side Centimetres and Metres. The rules provide that the measurement in length should not be in Feet and Inches. It is only the measurements in length should be only in Centimetres and Metres. No rule or G.O. had been produced before the lower court to show that in the same scale, there should not be both measurements in Centimetres and Metres on one side and on the other side Inches and Feet. In M.O. 1, there is graduation on one side the measurement in Length of Centimetres and Metres and so it can be held that this scale with graduation is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. Therefore it cannot be said that in the shop of the accused, there was a scale kept

in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the provisions of Rules made thereunder. Merely on the ground that M.O. 1 had not been sealed by the Department concerned, it cannot be held that the accused had committed the offence with which she had been charged since it is not the prosecution launched against her for the failure on her part to obtain the seal of the Department concerned on M.O. 1. Under these circumstances, it is seen that the complainant had not proved his case against the accused under the provisions of S. 7(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 (Madras Act XX of 1958) and R. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1967. The acquittal of the accused-respondent herein under S. 255(1) Cr.P.C. is correct. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence this appeal is dismissed.