Provisions of IPC Relating to Weights and Measures Inapplicable Where Legal Metrology Act Applies: Allahabad High Court Quashes Sections 265, 266 IPC

"No person can be charged for an offence relating to weight or measure falling under Chapter XIII of IPC in view of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act" – Allahabad High Court clarifying the legal interplay between the Indian Penal Code and the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. In an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the charge sheet and summoning order in a fuel dispensing fraud case, the High Court partly allowed the application, quashing charges under Sections 265 and 266 IPC, while allowing prosecution under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to proceed.

The Court held that where offences specifically pertain to weights and measures, the Legal Metrology Act—being a special law—prevails, and prosecution under corresponding IPC provisions is barred. However, it affirmed that charges related to cheating and violations under the Essential Commodities Act are not excluded by the Metrology Act and can proceed independently.

"Legal Metrology Act Overrides Chapter XIII IPC: No Parallel Prosecution Permissible for Weights and Measures Offences"

The applicant, Laxmi Kant Pandey, was a petrol pump dealer operating under the name Pandey Filling Station in Banda district, Uttar Pradesh. On June 14, 2017, a surprise inspection by a team constituted by government orders revealed that Nozzle No. 2 of the fuel dispensing unit had a broken pulser seal, suggesting tampering.

Following the inspection, an FIR was registered on July 19, 2017 under Sections 265, 266, 419, and 420 IPC along with Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The charge sheet was filed, and the Magistrate summoned the applicant on October 25, 2017.

The applicant approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings, particularly challenging the applicability of Sections 265 and 266 IPC, which pertain to fraudulent use and possession of false weights and measures.

IPC Provisions on Weights and Measures Barred by Legal Metrology Act

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether prosecution under Sections 265 and 266 IPC could be sustained when the allegations pertain to manipulation of fuel dispensing units, which are instruments governed by the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

Justice Vikram D. Chauhan noted that Section 3 of the Legal Metrology Act provides overriding effect over any other inconsistent enactment, and Section 51 specifically excludes the application of IPC and CrPC provisions relating to offences concerning weights and measures.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s authoritative judgment in State of U.P. v. Aman Mittal, (2019) 19 SCC 740, the High Court reiterated:

“Section 3 of the Act completely overrides the provisions of Chapter XIII of IPC in respect of the offences and penalties imposable for violations of the provisions of the Act, it being a special Act... No person can be charged for an offence relating to weight or measure falling under Chapter XIII of IPC in view of the provisions of the Act.”

Since Sections 265 and 266 IPC fall within Chapter XIII, which deals with weights and measures, the High Court concluded that prosecution under these sections is barred by operation of the Legal Metrology Act.

Accordingly, the summoning order under these sections was quashed.

“Civil Liability Does Not Preclude Penal Consequences Where Criminal Offences Are Made Out”

Cheating and Essential Commodities Act Prosecution Upheld

The Court, however, declined to quash the prosecution under Sections 419 and 420 IPC (pertaining to cheating) and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It held that these provisions are not covered by the Legal Metrology Act and can be prosecuted independently.

The applicant’s arguments that he had already suffered civil consequences—specifically, the termination of his dealership—were rejected by the Court. Justice Chauhan held:

“Termination of the dealership agreement is a civil consequence... however, where the allegations also attract criminal provisions, the accused is required under law to be prosecuted for the offence committed.”

The applicant’s reliance on a prior complaint about the dispensing unit’s defect and its alleged resolution before the inspection was also not accepted at this stage. The Court observed that such a defence involves evaluation of evidence and cannot form the basis for quashing at the pre-trial stage. It clarified:

“The defence raised... is a question of evidence... Such an issue can be raised by the applicant in the trial and at this stage, it would not be possible for this Court to hold mini trial.”

IPC Charges Quashed Where Legal Metrology Act Applies, But Cheating Allegations Stand

The High Court’s decision provides an important reaffirmation of the principle that special statutes override general law, especially in cases of overlapping penal provisions. While it protected the applicant from double jeopardy in relation to offences concerning weights and measures, it ensured that allegations of deceit and public cheating are not insulated by technical arguments.

Accordingly, the application under Section 482 CrPC was partly allowed. The summoning and prosecution under Sections 265 and 266 IPC were quashed, but the Court allowed the proceedings to continue under Sections 419 and 420 IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It also left open the scope for the investigating agency to file supplementary charges if warranted by evidence.

“It would be open for the Investigating Agency/court concerned to charge the accused for such offences or any other offence... as considered appropriate.”

Date of Decision: October 17, 2025