Karnataka High Court
Sri. Bharath vs The Inspector Of Legal Metrology on 13 March, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 9942 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9942 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BHARATH,
S/O. SONNAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2. SMT. VEENA,
W/O. KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
3. SMT. VADASHREE,
W/O. SHIVAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
4. SMT. GEETHA,
W/O. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by ALL ARE THE CONCERNED PERSONS OF
SUMA
M/S. REDDY ELECTRONICS &
Location:
HIGH COURT HOME APPLIANCES,
OF OLD CANARA BANK ROAD,
KARNATAKA VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABINARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
KONGADIAPPA ROAD,
KUMBARPET,
-2-
CRL.P No. 9942 of 2017
DODDABALLLAPURA - 561 203,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2579/2015 PENDING
BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE 'A'.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged their prosecution in C.C.No.2579/2015 on the file the Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short) for the offences punishable under Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (in short Act, 2009) and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (in short Rules, 2011).
2. A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was lodged contending that the complainant along with staff visited the premises of the accused and found three pre-packed package of Digiflic Mineral Water Pot and three pre-packed package of Electronic Kettle, on which, complete address of the manufacturer was not legible and prominent and the customer -3- CRL.P No. 9942 of 2017 care telephone number was not declared. Likewise the maximum retail price was not declared on the principal display panel on the pre-packed Digiflic Mineral Water as per the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, rule 2(m). It was alleged that non-declaration on such pre-packaged commodity violated Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The Trial Court took Cognizance and issued process and secured the accused. The substance of the accusation was read over to the accused, who denied them and claimed to be tried. Later, the accused have filed this petition challenging the prosecution on various grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the non-declaration of the declarations as prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, 2009 is not an offence punishable under the Act, 2009 but is an offence punishable with fine under the rules of 2011. He submits that not declaring the declarations would not constitute an offence under Section 18 or Section 36 of Act, 2009.
-4-CRL.P No. 9942 of 2017
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that Section 18 of the Act, 2009 mandates the declarations to be made, failing which, an offence under Section 36 of the Act, 2009 is committed. He therefore submits that the accused cannot escape criminal prosecution.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader.
6. Section 18 of Act, 2009 provides for declarations on pre-packaged commodities and the same reads as hereunder:
Section 18 Declarations on pre-packaged commodities (1) "No person shall manufacture, pack, sell, import, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged commodity unless such package is in such standard quantities or number and bears thereon such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Any advertisement mentioning the retail sale price of a pre-packaged commodity shall contain a declaration as to the net quantity or number of the commodity contained in the package in such form and manner as may be prescribed."-5- CRL.P No. 9942 of 2017
7. The words "unless such pre-package is in such standard quantities or number and bears there on such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed", indicates that such declarations must be made. In order to know when an offence under Section 36 of the Act, 2009 is said to be committed, it is apposite to extract section 36 of the Act, 2009:
Section 36 Penalty for selling, etc., of non-standard packages (1) "Whoever manufactures, packs, imports, sells, distributes, delivers or otherwise transfers, offers, exposes or possesses for sale, or causes to be sold, distributed, delivered or otherwise transferred, offered, exposed for sale any pre-packaged commodity which does not conform to the declarations on the package as provided in this Act, shall be punished with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, for the second offence, with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and for the subsequent offence, with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with both.
(2) Whoever manufactures or packs or imports or causes to be manufactured or packed or imported, any pre-packaged commodity, -6- CRL.P No. 9942 of 2017 with error in net quantity as may be prescribed shall be punished with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and for the second and subsequent offence, with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with both."
8. Therefore an offence under section 36 (1) or (2) of the Act, 2009 is said to be committed when "any pre-packaged commodity does not conform to the declarations on the package as provided in the Act" or when there any "error in net quantity". Therefore, an offence under Section 36 of the Act, 2009 would be committed when the articles inside the pre-packed packages do not correspond or conform to the declaration made on the package as provided in the Act. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondent that the contents of the pre-package did not confirm to the declaration made on the package. In so far as the declaration on a pre- package commodity, rule 6, of the Rules, 2011. Provides for the declarations to be made on every package. Any failure to make a declaration in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules, 2011 is -7- CRL.P No. 9942 of 2017 treated as an offence which is punishable with fine under Rule 32 of the rules, 2011 which reads as follows:
"whoever contravenes any provisions of these rules, for which no punishment is provided, shall be punished with fine of five thousand rupees."
In that view of the matter, the appropriate provision which could be invoked by the respondent is Rule 32 of the Rules, 2011 and under rule 32, of the Rules 2011 a maximum fine of Rs.2,000/- alone is leviable. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioners undertook to pay the fine, the prosecution of the petitioners under section 36 of the Act, 2009 is not warranted. Consequently, this petition is allowed-in-part. The prosecution of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 18(1) of the Act, 2009 and the Rules 2011 are quashed, but they shall be prosecuted for the offence under Rule 32 of the Rules 2011. In view of the admission of guilt and undertaking to pay the maximum fine, the Trial Court is directed to impose penalty of Rs.2,000/- for each offence as provided under Rule 32 of the rules 2011 and pass suitable orders.
-8-CRL.P No. 9942 of 2017
The Registry is directed to circulate a copy of this order to the Department of Legal Metrology for their information who shall henceforth not take out proceedings to prosecute any company/firm or any individual for an offence under Section 36 of the Act, 2009 for not making the required declarations under Rule 6 of the Rules, 2011.
Sd/-
JUDGE NR/PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 STK