Karnataka High Court
Britannia Industries Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:32565
CRL.P No. 4284 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4284 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1913
AND VALIDLY EXISTING UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
5/1 A, HUNGERFORD STREET,
KOLKATA-700017,
WEST BENGAL.
AND HAVING ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICE AT
PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN
TOWER C,
WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA POST,
Digitally BENGALURU-560 048
signed by REPRESENTED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
SUMA
Location:
BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
HIGH MOHD.MOHSIN BEG
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY
INSPECTION SQUAD-4,
CHITRADURGA-577 502
REPRESENTED BY
HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PROSECUTOR,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:32565
CRL.P No. 4284 of 2019
HIGH COURT BUILDING.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.550/2018, PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHITRADURGA, INCLUDING THE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.199/2018,
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT PURPORTEDLY IN EXERCISE OF POWERS
UNDER SECTIONS 25, 29 AND 36 OF THE LEGAL METROLOGY ACT,
2009 FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 18, 8(3) AND
11(e) OF THE LEGAL METROLOGY ACT,2009 AND RULES 4, 18 AND
24 OF THE LEGAL METROLOGY (PACKAGED COMMODITIES) RULES,
IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER AND ITS OFFICERS ARE
CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the prosecution initiated against it in C.C.No.550/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 18, 36, 8(3), 25, 11(e) & 29 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act' for short) and Sections 4, 18 and 24 of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, (henceforth referred to as 'Rules' for short) pending trial before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitraduraga.
2. The Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology inspected the business premises of accused No.1 and seized one pre- -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:32565 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2019 packaged packet which allegedly did not contain a proper declaration in that the number of articles contained therein was not mentioned with either 'N or 'U'. Therefore, it was alleged that it amounted to an offence under Section 36(1) of Act. A private complaint was hence filed alleging commission of offences under Sections 18, 36, 8(3), 25, 11(e) & 29 of the Act, and 4, 18 and 24 of Rules.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that non-declaration of particulars prescribed under Section 18 of the Act would not result in an offence under Section 36(1) of the Act, since what was seized was a whole sale packet from the wholesaler and therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. In support of the above contention, he relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., rep. by Manager Vs. State of Karnataka, through the Inspector of legal Metrology - 2023 SCC Online Karnataka 29. Therefore, he contends that the impugned prosecution of the petitioner is improper and therefore deserves to be quashed. Learned senior counsel invited the attention of the Court to paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the aforesaid judgment which is extracted below: -4-
NC: 2023:KHC:32565 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2019
18. As per the second offence as indicated in the complaint, the complainant has registered the complaint indicating that the item sold by number does not carry a prefix of alphabet 'N' or 'U'.
Before I advert to the averments in the complaint, it would be useful for this Court to cull out Rule 13(5)(i) and 5(ii) which reads as under:
"5. Symbol of Units:--
(i) No system of units other than the International System of Units shall be used in furnishing the net quantity of the package;
(ii) For items sold by number the symbol should be N or U. (Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-
rule, it is clarified that for indicating the unit for litre, the letter 'L' may be adopted to avoid confusion with the letter 'I' and figure '1')"
19. On plain reading of the above said Rule, it is clearly evident that the said provision is applicable only for retail packages and are not applicable to wholesale packages. The provisions applicable to wholesale packages is enumerated in Chapter-III of Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011. Rule 24 which is applicable to wholesale packages reads as under:-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:32565 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2019 '24. Declarations applicable to be made on every wholesale package- Every wholesale package shall bear thereon a legible, definite, plain and conspicuous declaration as to-
(a) The name and address of the
manufacturer or importer or where the
manufacturer or importer is not the packer, of the packer,
(b) the identity of the commodity contained in the package; and
(c) the total number of retail package contained in such wholesale package or the net quantity in terms of standard units of weights, measures or number of the commodity contained in wholesale package:
Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply in relation to a wholesale package if a declaration similar to the declarations specified in this rule, is required to be made on such wholesale packages by or under any other law for the time being in force."
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand, contended that the non-declaration of particulars as prescribed under Section 18 of the Act does amount to an -6- NC: 2023:KHC:32565 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2019 offence and therefore, the order taking cognizance of the offence is just and proper. Therefore, this Court may not exercise power under Section 482 of Code of criminal procedure to quash the proceedings.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.
6. The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Rules framed thereunder are designed to inform a purchaser of a pre- packaged commodity about the particulars of the manufacturer, place of manufacture, the date of expiry of the packaged commodity, the maximum retail price, the quantity packed specification of the product packed, the contact details of the consumer grievance agency etc., Therefore, when a retail purchaser desires to purchase a packaged commodity, he has to be informed about the number of units of the commodity packed inside the package by marking with 'N' or 'U'. However, in respect of a wholesale package, the declarations to be made thereon are contained in Rule 24 of the Legal Metrology -7- NC: 2023:KHC:32565 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2019 (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 apply, which reads as follows:
"24. Declarations applicable to be made on every wholesale package- Every wholesale package shall bear thereon a legible, definite, plain and conspicuous declaration as to-
(a) The name and address of the
manufacturer or importer or where the
manufacturer or importer is not the packer, of the packer,
(b) the identity of the commodity contained in the package; and
(c) the total number of retail package contained in such wholesale package or the net quantity in terms of standard units of weights, measures or number of the commodity contained in wholesale package:
Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply in relation to a wholesale package if a declaration similar to the declarations specified in this rule, is required to be made on such wholesale packages by or under any other law for the time being in force."-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:32565 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2019
7. Therefore, in respect of a wholesale package, it is the total number of retail packages contained therein that has to be mentioned on the package. In the case on hand, the package seized was admittedly a wholesale package containing 120 packs of retail packages weighing 43 grams each. It is relevant to note that when the package is sent to a wholesaler, he needs to be informed about the number of retailed packages packed. Thus, in the instant case by mentioning '120 packs' on the wholesale package met the requirement under Rule 24(c) of the Rules, 2011.
8. Though the petitioner has raised several contentions namely; (i) the non-consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice issued by the respondent for compounding the offence; (ii) a notice seeking explanation of the violation of Rule 24 of the Rules, 2011 was not issued; (iii) the non-mentioning of the notice issued for compounding, in the private complaint and the consequent reply submitted by petitioner; (iv) that the impugned prosecution is thoroughly illegal in view of the circular dated 12.01.2007 issued by the Director, Legal Metrology that "where the commodities are sold by member, the declaration of -9- NC: 2023:KHC:32565 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2019 quantity by number or pieces will be deemed sufficient compliance of this provision" etc., yet since the package in question was a wholesale package, the declaration of the number of retail packets packed, did not meet the requirements under Rule 24. Therefore, the impugned prosecution of the petitioners is undesirable.
Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.550/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 18, 36, 8(3), 25, 11(e) & 29 of the Act and Rules 4, 18 and 24 of Rules, pending trial before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitraduraga is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7