Karnataka High Court
Laurence Wheeler vs The State on 19 July, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10784/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Laurence Wheeler
Age: Major
Occ: Executive Vice-President
Manufacturing & Supply
Colgate-Palmolive(India) Limited
Colgate Research Centre
Main Street
Hiranandani Gardens
Powai
Mumbai-400 076.
2. Sarala Menon
Age: Major
Occ: Vice-President
Customer Service & Logistics
Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited
Colgate Research Centre
Main Street
Hiranandani Gardens
Powai, Mambai-400 076.
3. The Company
Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited
Hiranandani Gardens, Powai
Mumbai-400 076
2
Represented by its Managing Director
Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited
Colgate Research Centre, Main street
Hiranandani Gardens,
Powai, Mumbai-400 076. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri S.S.Patil, Advocate)
AND:
The State
Rep.by Inspector of Legal
Metrology, Hubli,
Sub-Division-1, Hubli. ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri P.H. Gotkhindi, Advocate )
This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure., seeking to quash and set aside Criminal
Complaint No.349/2009 pending on the file of the JMFC Court,
Hubli, and further be quash and set aside the order of issuance
of non-bailable warrant dated 05.07.2012.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The Government Pleader is directed to take notice. 3
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are all officers of a reputed company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Proceedings had been initiated against the petitioners, including the company, for violation of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measure Act, 1976, now known as Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. It is their case that for the purpose of convenience and transportation, the tooth paste packages were wrapped in cellophane wrapper and the said wrapper is not a wholesale or a retail package and it is completely transparent and the declaration on each individual tooth paste pack including, the name and address of the manufacturer, name of the commodity, net weight etc., is clearly visible. The cellophane wrapper is used only for convenience and for the purpose of facilitating transportation so that the tooth paste can be conveniently stacked for transportation and the product would be safe from getting damaged or sullied. It transpires that the complainant had visited the business premises or distribution point where the goods manufactured by the 4 company of the petitioners is sold and on examination of some of the pre-packed commodities, had found that pre-packages were not according to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and therefore, the proceedings had been initiated.
4. Further, though summons had been ordered by the court below and the summons not having been served on the petitioners, the court below has proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants and the learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out from the order sheet that the last date on which summons was issued was 13.3.2011 and there is no report of the summons having been served. The court however, has inexplicably ordered non-bailable warrant, as if the petitioners had defaulted in appearance after service of summons. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that on that count as well, the proceedings would have to be set at naught.
5. The learned Counsel would place before the court identical circumstances, which were challenged before the 5 Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, where the court has quashed the proceedings.
Further, the Counsel would also place reliance on an order of the Controller, Legal Metrology, Andhra Pradesh, who has recalled the proceedings issued in identical circumstances while observing that the pre-packages, which were not found with the necessary details, were only for the sake of convenience and there was no irregularity and the learned counsel would, therefore, submit that by a similar token of reasoning, the present proceedings would have to be quashed on that ground as well.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that it is only on the petitioners not responding to the summons, that non-bailable warrant may have been issued and seeks time to obtain further instructions in this regard. Further, he would submit that insofar as the contention on merits is concerned, it is for the petitioners to have their say before the Court of the Magistrate and even though there has 6 been issuance of a non-bailable warrant, it is a curable defect and would not vitiate the proceedings and the learned counsel would submit that appropriate directions may be issued in this regard and no case is made out for quashing the proceedings at this stage.
7. In the light of the above circumstances, from the copy of the order sheet produced, it is evident that there is no report of the summons having been served on the petitioner. In that light of the matter, it is unjust for the court below to have issued a non-bailable warrant, even though the summons were never said to have been served on the petitioners.
Accordingly, the order passed by the court below issuing non-bailable warrant stands quashed. The trial court is directed to reissue summons to the accused, and on their appearance before the court, unless their appearance is exempted for good and valid reason, shall hear the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the complaint itself, on the ground that in similar circumstances, the Department of Metrology has taken 7 a stand that the irregularity which is sought to be urged as violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules has been condoned and that it has been held that there is no such violation. The same shall be taken into account by the court below in proceeding further.
With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv