Date of the Judgment: 04 September 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 762
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can an individual be prosecuted under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 for the same act of tampering with fuel dispensing machines? This was the core question before the Supreme Court of India. The court examined the extent to which the Legal Metrology Act, a special law, overrides the general provisions of the IPC, particularly concerning offenses related to weights and measures. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on April 28, 2017, at Police Station Cantt, Lucknow, concerning short delivery of petrol and diesel at various retail outlets. The FIR alleged that for every 5 liters of fuel sold, 200-220 ml was being short-delivered. The Special Task Force (STF) of the State Police, along with officials from the Department of Weights and Measures and the District Administration, conducted raids on April 27, 2017.
During the raids, it was discovered that 13 out of 15 nozzles at a particular outlet were involved in short delivery. The team found that when 5 liters of fuel were dispensed, the actual quantity was 200 ml less. The FIR also alleged the use of electronic chips inside the dispensing units, operated by remote controls, to manipulate the fuel quantity. The accused were arrested on April 28, 2017. Further investigation on June 1, 2017, led to the recovery of electronic chips from the dispensing units, which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow.
A charge-sheet was filed on July 25, 2017, for offenses under Sections 265, 267, 420, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Sections 12 and 30 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The Magistrate took cognizance of offenses under Section 30 of the Legal Metrology Act but not under Sections 471 and 120B of the IPC. Applications were filed under Sections 167(2) and 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which were rejected. Subsequently, a petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed before the High Court, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 27, 2017 | Special Task Force (STF) raids retail outlets in Lucknow. Discovery of short delivery of fuel. |
| April 28, 2017 | FIR No. 130 lodged at Police Station Cantt, Lucknow. Accused arrested. |
| June 1, 2017 | Electronic chips recovered from dispensing units. |
| June 7, 2017 | Judicial remand of accused allowed; investigation under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 12/30 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 permitted. |
| July 25, 2017 | Charge-sheet filed before the competent court. |
| July 26, 2017 | Applications filed under Sections 167(2) and 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| July 27, 2017 | Magistrate rejects applications under Sections 167(2) and 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| October 4, 2017 | Order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. |
| November 24, 2017 | Order passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow dismissing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| September 04, 2019 | Supreme Court of India delivers judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, examined several questions of law. These included whether the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, superseded the IPC and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding offenses related to weights and measures. The High Court also considered whether the Legal Metrology Act and the Essential Commodities Act had an overriding effect on the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning investigation, search, and seizure.
The High Court held that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applies unless a different procedure is prescribed under a special law. It concluded that Section 26 of the Legal Metrology Act overrides Sections 264 to 267 of the IPC, and that Section 51 of the Act excludes the application of the IPC and Section 153 of the Code concerning weights and measures. The High Court directed the District Judge, Lucknow, to ascertain the residual stock in the underground tanks and allow its delivery to the oil company. It also changed the Investigating Officer and issued directions for sample collection and calibration reports.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the following key provisions:
- Section 2(g) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009: Defines “Legal Metrology” as “that part of metrology which treats units of weighment and measurement, methods of weighment and measurement and weighing and measuring instruments, in relation to the mandatory technical and legal requirements which have the object of ensuring public guarantee from the point of view of security and accuracy of the weighments and measurements.”
- Section 3 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009: States that “The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.”
- Section 26 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009: Deals with tampering or altering standards of weights and measures, prescribing a penalty of fine extending to fifty thousand rupees and for the second and subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
- Section 30 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009: Specifies penalties for transactions contravening standard weights or measures, including delivering less quantity than contracted for, with a fine extending to ten thousand rupees, and for the second or subsequent offense, imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both.
- Section 51 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009: States that “The provisions of the Indian Penal Code and section 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in so far as such provisions relate to offences with regard to weight or measure, shall not apply to any offence which is punishable under this Act.”
- Section 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Allows a police officer to inspect and search for false weights and measures without a warrant.
- Section 265 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the fraudulent use of false weights or measures, punishable with imprisonment up to one year, fine, or both.
- Section 267 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with making or selling false weights or measures, punishable with imprisonment up to one year, fine, or both.
Arguments
The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, does not exclude offenses under the IPC. They contended that the Act only overrides offenses inconsistent with it, except as specified. The State relied on precedents such as State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan, where it was held that prosecution can be lodged under both the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006, and the IPC, and Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr., where it was held that prosecution under Section 420 of the IPC is maintainable even after prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The accused, represented by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, argued that the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, is a complete code, providing standards for weights and measures, testing procedures, and offenses. They claimed that the Act has an overriding effect, thus excluding prosecution under the IPC. They cited Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Gagan Harsh Sharma & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., which held that the Information Technology Act, 2000, overrides the IPC in cases involving electronic records.
Submissions
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by State of Uttar Pradesh | Sub-Submissions by Accused |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of IPC |
|
|
| Overriding Effect of Special Statute |
|
|
| Specific Offenses |
|
|
Innovativeness of the Argument
The State’s argument was innovative in emphasizing that the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, does not provide a comprehensive code for all offenses related to weights and measures, particularly those involving fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. This highlighted the limitations of the Act and the need for the IPC to cover offenses not explicitly addressed by the special statute.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, excludes the application of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for offenses related to weights and measures.
- Whether the directions issued by the High Court were within its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, excludes the application of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for offenses related to weights and measures. | Partially. | The Court held that the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, overrides Chapter XIII of the IPC, but does not exclude other IPC offenses like cheating, forgery, or criminal conspiracy. |
| Whether the directions issued by the High Court were within its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. | No. | The Court found that the High Court’s directions, including changing the Investigating Officer and involving the District Judge, were beyond the scope of Section 482 of the Code. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Legal Point | How Considered | Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| M. C. Abraham and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others [ (2003) 2 SCC 649 ] | Scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. | The Court referred to this case to emphasize that the High Court cannot interfere with the investigation process under Section 482 of the Code. | Supreme Court of India |
| State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan [Criminal Appeal No. 1195 of 2018] | Concurrent applicability of special and general statutes. | The Court relied on this case to support the argument that prosecution can be lodged under both a special statute and the IPC. | Supreme Court of India |
| Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [(2012) 7 SCC 621] | Maintainability of prosecution under Section 420 of the IPC despite Section 138 of the NI Act. | The Court used this case to illustrate that different offenses with different ingredients can be tried separately, even if facts overlap. | Supreme Court of India |
| Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi) [(2017) 2 SCC 18] | Overriding effect of the Information Technology Act, 2000, over the IPC. | The Court distinguished this case, noting that it dealt with electronic records and obscenity, and that the IT Act was a special enactment with specific provisions. | Supreme Court of India |
| Gagan Harsh Sharma & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No. 4361 of 2018] | Overriding effect of the Information Technology Act, 2000, over the IPC. | The Court referred to this case, noting that it was dismissed by the Supreme Court, but did not agree with the High Court’s reasoning. | Bombay High Court |
| Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Ors. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. [(2019) 4 SCC 376] | Effect of dismissal of a special leave petition. | The Court referred to this case to clarify that the dismissal of a special leave petition does not amount to merger of the High Court’s order with the Supreme Court’s order. | Supreme Court of India |
| Macquarie Bank Limited v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Limited [(2018) 2 SCC 674] | Doctrine of harmonious construction of statutes. | The Court referred to this case to discuss the principles of harmonious construction when dealing with two parliamentary statutes. | Supreme Court of India |
| T.S. Baliah v. T.S.Rengachari [(1969) 3 SCR 65] | Punishment under two different enactments. | The Court referred to this case to reiterate that an offender may be punished under either or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. | Supreme Court of India |
| State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan [(1988) 4 SCC 655] | Punishment under two different enactments. | The Court referred to this case to reiterate that an act or an omission can amount to and constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time, an offence under any other law. | Supreme Court of India |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions of both parties and the authorities cited. It held that the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, is a special statute that overrides Chapter XIII of the IPC concerning offenses related to weights and measures. However, the Court clarified that the Act does not exclude offenses under the IPC that are not specifically covered by the Act, such as cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
The Court also examined the High Court’s directions, finding that they exceeded the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by interfering with the investigation process. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court cannot direct the change of Investigating Officer or the involvement of the District Judge in the investigation.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| State of Uttar Pradesh | The Legal Metrology Act does not exclude IPC offenses. | Partially accepted. The Court agreed that the Act does not exclude all IPC offenses, but only those related to weights and measures under Chapter XIII of the IPC. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh | The Act overrides only inconsistent offenses. | Partially accepted. The Court agreed that the Act overrides the provisions of the IPC related to weight and measure. |
| Accused | The Legal Metrology Act is a complete code. | Rejected. The Court held that the Act is not a complete code and does not cover offenses like cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. |
| Accused | The Act has an overriding effect, excluding IPC offenses. | Partially rejected. The Court held that the Act overrides Chapter XIII of the IPC but not other IPC offenses not covered by the Act. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| M. C. Abraham and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2003) 2 SCC 649] | Followed. The Court used this case to emphasize that the High Court cannot interfere with the investigation process under Section 482 of the Code. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan [Criminal Appeal No. 1195 of 2018] | Followed. The Court relied on this case to support the argument that prosecution can be lodged under both a special statute and the IPC. |
| Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [(2012) 7 SCC 621] | Followed. The Court used this case to illustrate that different offenses with different ingredients can be tried separately, even if facts overlap. |
| Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi) [(2017) 2 SCC 18] | Distinguished. The Court distinguished this case, noting that it dealt with electronic records and obscenity, and that the IT Act was a special enactment with specific provisions. |
| Gagan Harsh Sharma & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No. 4361 of 2018] | Referred to but not followed. The Court referred to this case, noting that it was dismissed by the Supreme Court, but did not agree with the High Court’s reasoning. |
| Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Ors. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. [(2019) 4 SCC 376] | Followed. The Court referred to this case to clarify that the dismissal of a special leave petition does not amount to merger of the High Court’s order with the Supreme Court’s order. |
| Macquarie Bank Limited v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Limited [(2018) 2 SCC 674] | Followed. The Court referred to this case to discuss the principles of harmonious construction when dealing with two parliamentary statutes. |
| T.S. Baliah v. T.S.Rengachari [(1969) 3 SCR 65] | Followed. The Court referred to this case to reiterate that an offender may be punished under either or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. |
| State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan [(1988) 4 SCC 655] | Followed. The Court referred to this case to reiterate that an act or an omission can amount to and constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time, an offence under any other law. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain a balance between the special provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and the general provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court recognized that while the Legal Metrology Act provides specific regulations for weights and measures, it does not cover all aspects of criminal conduct associated with fraudulent practices. The Court emphasized that the Act is intended to ensure accuracy in weights and measures, but it does not address offenses such as cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
The Court also considered the principle that a special statute overrides a general statute to the extent of inconsistency. However, it clarified that the overriding effect is limited to the specific area covered by the special statute. In this case, the Court determined that the Legal Metrology Act only overrides those provisions of the IPC that directly relate to offenses concerning weights and measures as defined in Chapter XIII of the IPC.
The Court was also mindful of the need to prevent misuse of the legal process and to ensure that individuals are not subjected to multiple prosecutions for the same act. Therefore, it held that while an individual can be prosecuted under the Legal Metrology Act and the IPC, they cannot be punished twice for the same offense.
The Court also considered the fact that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by interfering with the investigation process and issuing directions that were not within its purview.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Balance between special and general statutes | 30% |
| Limitations of the Legal Metrology Act | 25% |
| Overriding effect of special statute | 20% |
| Prevention of misuse of legal process | 15% |
| Jurisdictional limits of the High Court | 10% |
Fact:Law
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court considered and rejected the argument that the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, is a complete code that excludes all offenses under the IPC. It clarified that while the Act is a special statute, its overriding effect is limited to the specific area it covers. The Court also considered the principle that an individual cannot be punished twice for the same offense, even if the act constitutes an offense under two different laws.
The final decision was reached by carefully balancing the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act and the IPC, while ensuring that the High Court’s directions were within its legal jurisdiction.
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Hemant Gupta. There were no dissenting opinions.
The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the relevant legal provisions and precedents. It emphasized the need to interpret statutes harmoniously and to avoid any interpretation that would lead to an absurd or unjust result. The Court also highlighted the importance of maintaining a clear separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, and the need to ensure that the High Court does not overstep its jurisdiction.
The potential implications for future cases are that the prosecution can be lodged under both the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for offences related to weights and measures. However, the accused cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced.
The Court emphasized the need to interpret statutes harmoniously and to avoid any interpretation that would lead to an absurd or unjust result. The Court also highlighted the importance of maintaining a clear separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, and the need to ensure that the High Court does not overstep its jurisdiction.