Public Prosecutor, Madras vs Javantharaj Guleeha and Another

Somasundaram, J.—Third Javanthirajj Gulecha, the first Respondent herein Is a licensed pawnbroker, carrying on business at No 56 Mettu

Street, Ayyanavaram Madras The second Respondent Is his son, The beam scale and the weights kept by him for weighing jewels etc., pledged

with him were checked and verified in the second quarter of the year 1966. Rule 10(1) of the Madras Weights and Measures (Enforcement)

Rules, 1967, provides that the scales and measures should be verified once in a year. This was not done. Therefore, the Assistant Inspector of

Labour, 11th Circle, Madras, filed a complaint against them before the Chief Presidency Magistrates. Egmore, for contravention of this rule, read

with Sections 11. and 25 of the Madras Weights and Measures Act, 1958.

The Respondents contended that they were not carrying trade, business or commerce In bullion or precious stones within the ambit of Rule

10(1) that they would be coveted

only by Rule 10(2) which states that such a verification should be done once in two years. Observing that the Respondents brokers were not

dealing with bullion as such or precious stones, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate held that the charge was not sustainable The State has

preferred this appeal challenging this decision.

Section 11 of the Madras Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act. 1958, states that no weight or measure or weighing or measuring

instrument shall be used in any transaction for trade, balsas or commerce unless it has been verified or re-verified So accordance with the rules

made under this Act and stained in the prescribed manner by an Inspector, with a stamp of verification. Section 25 provide the punishment for the

contravention of Section 11 of the Act. Rule 10 (1) reads as follows:

All weight, measures and weighing instruments used in transaction for trade Business or commences In bullion and previous stones or by a factory

to which the Factories Act, 1948 applies or by a railway administration operating any railways defined In Clause 20 of Article 366 of the

Constitution or mines Act 1952 and all measuring the Indian Mines Act 1952 and all measuring Instruments and tack lorries used in transitions for

trade, business or commerce shall be verified and stamped in accordance with the Act and these rules at least once in every twelve months.

Clause (2) states that all weight measuring and weighing instrument used or intended to be used in all transaction for trade, business or commerce

other than those specified In Sub-rule (1) shall be verified and stamped in accordance with the Act and these rules at least once In two years."" The

contention of the prosecution is that the facts fall under Rule 10 (1) of the rule.

Bullion"" Is not defined either In the Act. Encyclopedia Britannica (Volume IV page 373) defines ''bullion'' as below:

Bullion is a name given to gold and silver considered solely as merchandise. It may be bar gold, gold dust or coins of many different degrees of

fineness.

Webster III, New International Dictionary defines ''buillion'' (page 294) as uncoiled gold or silver in the shape of bars, ingots or comparable

masses."" Concise Oxford dictionary defines ""bullion"" as ""gold or silver before coming or manufacture. It may also be solid or real gold or silver"".

Law Lexicon defines it at page 161 as ""uncoiled gold or silver"". Under Notification No. 12 (11)-F-1/48 dated 25th August, 1948, Issued u/s 8 of

the Foreign. Enchange Regulations Act, 1947, except with the general or special, permission of the Reserve Bank, import of any gold coin, gold

bullion, gold sheets or gold Ingot, whether refined or not, Is prohibited. The expression ""bullion"" is not defined in the Act, in page 85 of the Law

relating to Foreign Exchange in India, by S.R. Vakil, we have the history about the expression ''bullion"". This word is desired from the French

word ""bullion"". ""Gold and silver are called so, either when arrested from the native ore and not preferably defined or when they are perfectly

refined but roiled down into bars or ingots, or into any unweight body of any degree or fineness.

Schedule IV Sub-clause (3)(b)(1) dealing with bulling weight describes us to how these weights should be. Rule 8 states that no weight under

than bullion weight shall be used in any transaction for trade, business or commerce in bullion and no weight other than a carat weight be used in

any transaction for trade, business or commerce In precious stones Schedule V, Part II-2 (b) deals with the classes of scales that may be used for

different trades. ''A'' class scale should be used in commercial as say and in dharamkantas for verify the weight of bullion and precious stones. ''B''

class scale should be used for precious stones, jewels, pearls, bullion, precious metals, saffron and similar expensive commodities, chemists and

druggists'' preparations, perfumery, etc Thus, we see that the word ''bullion'' includes gold and silver when melted from the native ore and not

perfectly refined. Such articles also are pledged with the pawn brokers. Therefore, the weights and measures kept in the shop of the Respondents

will be used in transactions, in business, trade or commerce in bullion'' on the pledge of which amounts are advanced. Though the Respondents do

not directly deal in bullion, as dealers still they handle these items after weighment for advancing amounts The object of the rule is that the weights

and measures kept for this purpose should be accurate and the rule prescribes that it should be verified once to a year. Admittedly, there was no

such verification and as such the Respondents have contravened Rule 10(1) of the rules.

Section 38 of the Act states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act, except upon complaint in writing made

by the Controller of Weights and Measures or any officer authorized in this behalf by the said Controller by general or special order. Ex. P. 7 the

authorization filed by this prosecution, is not the one signed by the Controller but is signed for the Controller. The prosecution has not produced

any authorization either by general or special order by the Controller. On this ground the Respondents are omitted to acquittal There Is a

contravention of Clause (1) of Rule 10 of the rules. But in this case there is no proof that there was an authorization by the Controller as

contemplated by Section 38 of the Act. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.