Kerala High Court
Proctor & Gamble Home Products Ltd vs Senior Inspector on 11 September, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 1
2024:KER:69766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.3346 OF 2014
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 PROCTOR & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD
PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE KATHA
P.O.BADDIDISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH - 173
205,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 SHANTANU KHOSLA
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE
HOMEPRODUCTS LTD., PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL
AREA,VILLAGE KATHA, P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT
SOLAN,HIMACHAL PRADESH - 173 205.
3 B.S.MEHTA
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD.,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
4 G.C.DAS
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD.,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
5 C.R.DUA
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
6 ANIL KUMAR GUPTA
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KOTHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 2
2024:KER:69766
7 PRAMOD AGARWAL
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD.,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
8 SONALI DAWAN
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
9 JESSICA RASTOGI
DEPUTY COMPANY SECRETARY AND COMPLIANCEOFFICER OF
PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD,PLOT NO.1,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT
SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH -173 205.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SENIOR INSPECTOR
LEGAL METROLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADGP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 3
2024:KER:69766
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2575 of 2015
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners who are accused Nos. 6 to 14 in CC No. 3346/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is filed by the 1st respondent - Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology alleging offences punishable under Secs. 2(i), 2(l), 2(o) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 r/w Rules 2(d), 2(g), 2(k), 4 and 6(2) of the Rules, 2011.
2. The allegation in the complaint is that on 01.04.2014 at about 12.15 pm, the 1st respondent purchased some articles from the shop Thrinethra Super Retail Pvt. Ltd, near HDFC Bank, Ambalamukku and on inspection, it was detected that in the packages exhibited, the mandatory CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 4 2024:KER:69766 declaration of the main address, telephone number, email address if available of the person who can be or the office which can be contacted in case of consumer complaints as specified in Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011 was not seen declared. Article No.1 inspected was PANTENE PRO-V SHAMPOO and Article No.2 was OLAY NATURAL WHITE 3 IN 1 FAIRNESS SERUM. It is alleged that in both the articles, the mandatory declaration of the main address, telephone number, email address, if available of the person who can be or the office which can be contacted in case of consumder complaints as specified in Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011 was not declared and hence, punishable under Sec. 36(1) of the Act. Annexure-A is the complaint. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted, in the light of Annexure-G order passed by this Court, the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of process of court. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 5 2024:KER:69766 Addl.Director General of Prosecution.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of Annexure-G order, the continuation of the prosecution is an abuse of process of court. Addl.Director General of Prosecution submitted that there is some difference in the facts of the case narrated in para 13 of the judgment. This Court perused Annexure-G order. It will be better to extract paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the above judgment.
12. "The allegation against the petitioners was that the package does not confirm Rule 6(1) (1-A) of the above said rules which says that every package shall bear the name, address, telephone number and e-mail address if available of the person who can be or the office which can be contacted in case of consumer complaints. This was intended for the consumer to approach the manufacturer in case of any defect in the manufacture to get redressal of their grievances.
13. I have pursued the label declaration seen on the packet where the manufacturer address is given as "Tide is the trade mark of the Procter and Gamble company and licensed to Procter and Gamble Home Products Limited-Mumbai-400 099" and under the caption consumer comments "consumer relations telephone 022-24942113, email:[email protected]. CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 6
2024:KER:69766 consumers. com" and bar code also was exhibited in the packet. Neither in the mahazar nor in the complaint presence of these descriptions were mentioned. The allegation was that no declaration or particulars as required under Rule 6(1) (1-A) was found on the packet and not that what is seen is not sufficient compliance of the rule. If the particulars mentioned are sufficient for the consumer to contact, the purpose of the rule has been complied with and that was intended by the legislature as well. So under the circumstances the allegation in the complaint that the Rule 6 (1) (1-A) of the above said rules has been violated appears to be not correct as the allegation was not that the particulars given are not sufficient but there is total lack of compliance of Rule 6(1) (1-A) which appears to be not correct. So, under the circumstances, this court feels that the allegation in the complaint that there is violation of the rules and thereby they have committed the offences mentioned is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and proceeding with the case will amount of abuse of process of court and it is a fit case where the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in ST.No.4116/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad as against the petitioners is hereby quashed." CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 7
2024:KER:69766
5. As far as the articles mentioned in the complaint, the petitioners produced a photograph of the same as Annexures-H and I. A perusal of the same would show that the details are mentioned. In the light of the same and also in the light of the dictum laid down in Annexure-G, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution is not necessary.
Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 3346/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 8 2024:KER:69766 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2575/2015 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-A: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.3346/2014 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE-B: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (PANTENE PRO-V SHAMPOO) DATED 3.4.2014 ANNEXURE-C: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (OLAY NATURAL WHITE 3 IN 1 FAIRNESS SERUM) DATED 3.4.2014 ANNEXURE-D: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY (PANTENE PRO-V SHAMPOO) ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 11.4.2014 ANNEXURE-E: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY (OLAY NATURAL WHITE 3 IN 1 FAIRNESS SERUM) ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 11.4.2014 ANNEXURE-F: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, LEGAL METROLOGY UNIT DATED 12.1.2007.
ANNEXURE-G: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C. NO.2429/2013 DATED 19.3.2015 ANNEXURE-H: PHOTOGRAPH OF ARTICLE NO.1 PANTENE PRO-V SHAMPOO ANNEXURE-I: PHOTOGRAPH OF ARTICLE NO.2 OLAY NATURAL WHITE 3 IN 1 FAIRNESS SERUM.