Introduction –
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to safeguard the interests of the consumers and protect them from exploitation and unfair trade practices. Still, consumers were exploited by the traders and then provisions were made under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to stop traders from indulging into activities of trade abuse. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides compensation as a remedy to the consumer who has been exploited or cheated but the Indian Penal Code, 1860 marks unethical trade practices as a crime in the eyes of the law.
Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 specifically from Section 264 to Section 267 deals with offences related to weights and measures. In the aforementioned sections, the traders use false weights and measures in order to cheat the customers. These fraudulent acts of the traders are done with the purpose of exploiting the consumers hence violating the rights and interests of the consumer.
Fraudulent use of the false instrument for weighing –
The criminal law in Section 264 punishes all such persons who have the malafide intention of cheating their consumers. This is deliberately done to exploit the consumer by using the false instrument for weights and measures. Under this Section 264 intention plays an integral role in deciding whether the act is an offence or not, it reads as-
“Whoever fraudulently uses any instrument for weighing which he knows to be false shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”[1]
In Kanayalal case[2], the buyer and seller of a commodity agreed on a certain measure calculation to be adopted for calculation while the sale of goods takes place. The court decided that agreement on a certain measure techniques would not amount to fraud as there was no malice. Both the parties mutually agreed in good faith with no dishonest intent on the measuring technique.
Fraudulent use of false weight or measure –
Section 265 of the IPC punishes an individual who uses false weights and measures of length and capacity or use of false weights and measures as a distinct weight or measure from what it actually is. Section 265 reads as –
“Whoever, fraudulently uses any false weight or false measure of length or capacity, or fraudulently uses any weight or any measure of length or capacity as a different weight or measure from what it is, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”[3]
Being in Possession of false weight or measure –
Section 266 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 especially talks about possession of false weight or measure. Ownership and possession are treated as two different aspects in law. The possession of a false weight or measure with knowledge about it is treated as an offence under the section and would be punished like wisely. There should be malicious intent behind possessing the good as per law then only can the possessor be punished. Section 266 reads as –
“Whoever is in possession of any instrument for weighing, or of any weight, or of any measure of length or capacity, which he knows to be false, intending that the same may be fraudulently used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”[4]
Making or selling false weight or measure –
The Circulation of such false scales, measures and weights are also checked by the criminal law. It further punishes all such persons producing, selling or distributing of wrong balances, weight or measures. Section 267 reads as –
“Whoever makes, sells or disposes of any instrument for weighing, or any weight, or any measure of length or capacity which he knows to be false, in order that the same may be used as true, or knowing that he same is likely to be used as true, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”[5]
Important Case Law-
Gopilal Agarwal v. State of Orissa[6] –
The appellant was prosecuted and punished for infringement of the standard quality of ‘gudakhu’. The Orissa High Court held that since no quality standards has been prescribed for ‘gudakhu’ by the Act and the rules, the penalty imposed was unsustainable.
Sources:
[1] https://indiankanoon.ord>doc
[2] Emperor v. Kanayalal Mohanlal Gujar (1939) 41 BOMLR 977
[3] https://indiankanoon.org<doc
[4] Section 266 Universal’s The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Bare Act (2020)
[5] Section 267 Universal’s The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Bare Act (2020)
[6] Gopilal Agarwal v. State of Orissa AIR 1973 Ori 15
This blog is written by Jaya Singh, Amity University.
Some of her blogs-
- MISCHIEF under Indian Penal Code
- Offences Relating To Election under IPC
- Bigamy and Cohabitation
- Unlawful Assembly & Rioting with Affray
- The doctrine of Double Jeopardy
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.
