Karnataka High Court
Hindustan Unilever Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2013
Equivalent citations: 2014 (1) AKR 263
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No. 3712/2010 (GM-RES)
Between:
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED
FORMERLY KNOWN AS
HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED
POND'S HOUSE, 101
SANTHOME HIGH ROAD
CHENNAI 600 028
BY ITS ASSISTANT LEGAL MANAGER
MR. SRINIVASRAO
...Petitioner
(BY SRI RAVI B. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. BASAVARAJ, ADV.)
And :
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY
WILSON GARDEN SUB-DIVISION
CORPORATION BUILDING, MINERVA CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 004
2 THE INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY
WILSON GARDEN SUB-DIVISION
CORPORATION BUILDING, MINERVA CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 004
2
3 THE CONTROLLER
LEGAL METROLOGY
ALI ASKER ROAD
BANGALORE
... Respondents
(BY SRI H.V. MANJUNATHA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO;
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT VIDE NOTICE DATED 09.02.2009 COPY
PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A CULMINATING
IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION LAUNCHED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT CULMINATING IN CRIMINAL CASE
No.14078/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 6 TH ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, COPY
PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court praying that the entire proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 vide notice dated 09.02.2009 culminating in the criminal prosecution in C.C.No.14078/2009 on the file of the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, be quashed. The petitioner is also assailing the communication at Annexure-H and is seeking consideration of the appeal at Annexure-D. Further prayers in the petition in support of the earlier prayers are also made therein. 3
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the petition papers.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is the manufacturer of several products referred to in the petition. In respect of the soaps being manufactured by the petitioner, a complaint as at Annexure-F was filed under Section 72 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short the 'Act'). By the said complaint, it was alleged that the label on the packages though had been affixed did not make the declaration with regard to the name and address of the manufacturer and customer care number. Pursuant to the said complaint filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance by the order dated 29.06.2009. The petitioner is therefore aggrieved by the same. It is also necessary to refer to the fact that the petitioner had filed an appeal as at Annexure-D against the action of the respondents and the said appeal was disposed of as not maintainable.
4
4. At the outset, it is necessary to indicate that the issue relating to filing of the appeal and disposal of the same would not arise for consideration, if the issue relating to the criminal proceedings is taken into consideration and the further proceedings therein, if for any reason is held by this Court as not maintainable. In that regard, the learned senior counsel, at the outset, would point out that the very reading of the complaint would indicate that the alleged offence under Section 39 of the said Act would only invite the fine of Rs.5,000/- and the manner in which the complaint had been filed before the Magistrate and the cognizance taken would indicate that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance after the limitation period prescribed in that regard had lapsed. It is further pointed out that the very reading of the order passed by the learned Magistrate would indicate non-application of mind. It is contended that when the cognizance is being taken, which would entail serious action, non-application of mind in itself is sufficient to hold that the cognizance taken is contrary to law and the further proceedings is liable to be quashed. 5
5. In the light of the contentions urged, a perusal of the provision of the Act would indicate that for any contravention of Section 39, it is provided that 'fine' is imposed as penalty on conviction. In this regard, the limitation as contemplated under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. would provide that the period of limitation for taking cognizance in such circumstance would be six months. If these aspects are kept in view, in the instant case, it is seen that the inspection was conducted on 26.12.2008 and the complaint was filed on 25.06.2009. The cognizance was taken on 29.12.2009. Taking these aspects into consideration, in my opinion, further detailed discussion of the matter is not necessary inasmuch as this Court in Crl.P.No.4335/2003, disposed of on 09.01.2008 (a copy of which is available at Annexure-S) in a similar set of circumstance has held that the cognizance taken and the summons issued was not in accordance with law and the order impugned therein had been set aside. Therefore, to the said extent, the same would become squarely applicable to the instant facts as well.
6
6. Further, what is also necessary to be noticed in the instant facts is that though the complaint was filed under the provisions of the Act alleging violation of the said provision, the order dated 29.06.2009 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance would indicate that the complaint referred to by the learned Magistrate which is said to have been perused and the documents are also noticed by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance is under Section 92 of the Factories Act. This in itself would indicate that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind before taking cognizance. Though to the said extent, it could have been a situation where the matter could have been remitted to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration, keeping in view the order at Annexure-'S' which has already been referred to hereinabove, where in a similar set of circumstance, this Court was of the view that when the cognizance taken is beyond the period of limitation even such course is unnecessary, in the instant case also the reconsideration will not arise.
7
7. Hence, keeping all these aspects in view, the proceedings in C.C.No.14078/2009 pending on the file of VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, stands quashed.
The petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms