The Supreme Court has reiterated that by way of High Court Code exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, the manner of investigation / investigation cannot be interfered with. The Allahabad High Court gave some instructions while disposing of a petition filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC, which included instructions to change the investigation officer to take disciplinary action against the nominated officers in the supplementary report. 

Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta said that giving such instructions in a petition filed under section 482 of the Code is beyond the purview of the High Court. 


The court observed in UP v. Aman Mittal: "The directions of the High Court while proceeding under section 482 of the Code against the interest of the accused in the petition filed by the accused are beyond his jurisdiction and thus, all such comments and Instructions are rejected.


The instructions issued in connection with the change of the investigating officer and linking the District Judge to such various action as are specifically within the jurisdiction of the investigating agency are beyond the scope of the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code and, therefore, The order of the court is required to be rescinded.

 "Another issue considered in this case was whether all the offenses under the IPC were dealt with by the Legal Metrology Act , Has been excluded in view of Section 3 of 2009 or only the offenses relating to weights and measures which are contained in Chapter XIII IPC have been excluded in view of Section 51 of the Act. In this regard, the Bench observed:


 * Section 3 of the Act completely abolishes / overrides the provisions of Chapter XIII of the IPC regarding offenses and penalties for violation of the provisions of the Act, as it is a special act, Therefore, if it is disclosed that the offenses are committed under the provisions of the Act, an accused cannot be charged for that offense under Chapter XIII of the IPC.


 * It is clear from reading section 51 of the Act It is likely that the provisions of the IPC, so far as they relate to offenses relating to weight or measurement, shall not apply to any offense punishable under this special Act. Therefore, only those provisions in Chapter XIII of the IPC relating to offenses in relation to weight and measurement will not apply. In view of the provisions of the Act, no person can be charged for an offense related to weight or measurement falling under Chapter XIII of the IPC.



* The scheme of the Act is for offenses relating to the use of non-standard weights and measures, or any tampering or alteration of weights or measurements standards, secondary standards or working standards. The Act does not envisage any offense related to fraud as defined under section 415 of the IPC or sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Similarly, an act done for the purpose of pursuing a general intention of disclosing an offense under section 34 is not covered by the provisions of the Act. 


* The offense of disclosing a criminal conspiracy, which is punishable under Section 120-B IPC, is also not an offense under this particular Act. Since such offenses are not punishable under the provisions of the Act, prosecution can be maintained for such offenses as the trial of such offenses is not inconsistent with any provision of the Special Act. If the same is true for sections 467, 468, 471 IPC, as such offenses are not covered by the provisions of the Act.


 * The bench, except the High Court order dismissing the charges under Sections 265 and 267 IPC, quashed the entire order. The Court also rejected the argument that the Act is a complete Code in itself, which has provisions for offenses and penalties under the said Act, therefore, for any violation of any provision of the Act, the prosecution can only be done against the Act. Under IPC and not for offenses which are offenses under IPC.