' This revision application under section 435 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is directed against the order, dated 6th January, 1983, passed by Major Nadeem Sipra who was Incharge Inspection Team, District Jacobabad, whereby he convicted the applicant Altaf Hussain son of Abdul Wahid of an offence punishable under section 34 of the Sind Standard Weights and Measures Enforcement Act, 1975 and sentenced him to pay fine Rs, 5,000 or suffer S.I. For one year in default. The order has been assailed on various legal grounds. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the Incharge Inspection Team was not authorised in law to have taken cognizance of the offence and recorded conviction and awarded the sentence on the applicant. He has further urged that the sentence awarded on the applicant exceeded, beyond proportions, the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence punishable under section 34, he was convicted and sentenced for. He has also urged that cognizance of the offence could not be taken unless a complaint was made in writing by the Controller or any officer authorised by him in that behalf. To a Court not inferior to that of a Magistrate of the First Class as laid down under section 46 of the said Act. He has also urged that the so-called trial of the offence was not held in accordance with law as the offence under section 34 of the Act is not triable summarily. The learned counsel for the State has conceded that the conviction and the sentence awarded on the applicant are against law.
2. It is apparent from the record that Major Nadeem Sipra recorded conviction of the applicant and awarded the sentence on him as Officer Incharge Inspection Team. The learned counsel for the State that it is not to his knowledge that Major Nadeem Sipra had been invested with any Magistrial powers to punish the offences detected during the Court A of inspection. It appears from the impugned order that a Magistrate was accompanying the Inspection Team and he had declined to take cognizance of the offence and award, sentence exceeding the maximum sentence provided for the offence and Major Nadeem Sipra assumed the powers of the Magistrate and convicted the applicant. This action of Major Nadeem Sipra amounted to flagrant violation of law.
3. As regards the second ground of quantum of sentence, the maximum punishment provided for the offence under section 34 of the Act is imprisonment of either description which may extend to one year or fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or both: but the Incharge Inspection Team awarded sentence on the applicant of fine of Rs, 5,000 which was definitely beyond the penalty provided under law.
4. The third ground relates to the taking of cognizance of offence under the Act. It is provided under section 46 of the Act that no Court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the first class shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the Controller or any officer authorised by him in that behalf. The "Controller" is defined under clause (b) to section 2 of the Act as a Controller of Weights and Measures and includes Additional Controller, Deputy Controller and Assistant Controller appointed under section 19 of the Act. It is apparent from the impugned order that there was no complaint by a Controller or any officer authorised by him for taking cognizance of the alleged commission of the offence. As .Already stated above the Incharge Inspection .Team was not a magistrate as to have taken cognizance of the offence.
5. For the reasons recorded above, it can be said without hesitation that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority and is void and is set aside. The fine, if recovered from the applicant, shall be refunded to him.