Karnataka High Court
M/S.Ramdev Agencies vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100483/2020
Between:
1. M/s. Ramdev Agencies,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Smt. Kamaladevi Chunilalji Choudhary,
Age 52 years, Occ: Business,
R/at: Baddi Building, 1st floor,
Opposite Moorsavir math, Hubballi-580028.
2. Smt. Kamaladevi Chunilalji Choudhary,
Age 52 years, Occ: Business,
The Proprietor of M/s. Ramdev Agencies,
R/at: Baddi building, 1st floor,
Opposite Moorsavir math, Hubballi - 580028
...Petitioners
(By Sri. Gourishankar H. Mot, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
By the Officer/Inspector of Legal Metrology,
Gokak Sub-Division, Gokak - 591307,
Now rep. by its State Public Prosecutor,
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad.
....Respondent
(Sri. Ramesh B. Chigari, HCGP for respondent)
:2:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.2768/2019 filed by the officer of Legal Metrology,
Gokak Sub-Division, Gokak against the Accused No.1 and
2/petitioners, pending on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge &
JMFC Court, Gokak for the offences punishable under
Section 31 & 36 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2768/2019 filed by the Officer of the Legal Metrology, Gokak Sub- Division, Gokak against them which is now pending on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gokak for the offences punishable under Sections 31 & 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
2. A complaint was filed by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Gokak Sub-Division, Gokak on 10.06.2019 :3: against the petitioners alleging that on 09.02.2019 at about 1:30 p.m. when the said Inspector had been to Shop of one Sri. Sadiq, the owner of M/s. Shams Foot Ware at Ibad Ali Janglisha Makandar Jamiya Mazid Complex, Koujalagi, Gokak, had conducted a searched and seized the articles as mentioned in the panchanama from the shop of M/s. Shams Foot Ware and then he found that the packing was in violation of Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Rules, 2001. The said owner of M/s. Shams Foot Ware by accepting the guilt and paid the fine since the goods were supplied by the petitioner No.1 to M/s. Shams Foot Ware, a notice came to be issued to the petitioners on 11.02.2019 to the said M/s. Shams Foot Ware and the first Petitioner stating that there has been a violation of Rules 6(1)(e) and 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 which is punishable under Section 36 of the said Act and are compoundable under Section 48 of the Act. :4:
3. In view thereof, an option was provided to the first Petitioner to either compound the matter or contest the same. For the purpose of compounding the offence, the details of the offence and the compounding fee was also provided. Accepting the said notice, the Petitioner wanting to compound the offence, had made payment of a sum of Rs.5,000/- as stated in the notice towards which a receipt dated 22.02.2019 has been issued by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Gokak Sub-Division, Gokak. Even though the said amount was received a complaint came to be filed by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, bearing C.C.No.2768/2019 which amongst others has made allegation against the Petitioner as regards the very same transaction with M/s. Sham Foot Ware as regards which the first Petitioner has compounded the offence by making payment of the sum of Rs.5,000/-.
4. Sri. Gourishankar H. Mot, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, once an offence has :5: been compounded under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, the question of initiating prosecution against the Petitioner would not at all arise, on compounding, the entire offence came to an end and closed and there could be no prosecution which could be initiated as against the said alleged offence which has been compounded.
5. Per contra, Sri. Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP would submit that the compounding is only with reference to the offence committed as regards the supply made by the Petitioner to M/s. Sham Foot Ware, but the complaint filed is with reference to various other offences as regards the supply made by the first Petitioner to other shop owners as stated therein, towards which separate notices have been issued. The only offence which has been compounded is as regards the offence regarding the goods supplied to M/s. Sham Foot Ware, therefore, the entire complaint cannot be quashed.
:6:
6. Heard Sri. Gourishankar H. Mot, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Ramesh B. Chigari, learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the papers.
7. Many of the offences under the Legal Metrology Act being offences which are economic in nature and from which the vendors derive economic benefit by flouting the rules and regulations as formulated under the Legal Metrology Act are permitted to compound the same in terms of the said Act. The option of compounding is provided so as to reduce the burden of prosecution and by imposing such a penalty it is assumed that the said vendor would not commit such an offence in the future.
8. The option having been provided for compounding in respect of offences as regards the supply of goods by the first Petitioner to M/s. Sham Foot Ware, wherein the infractions were that (1) Retail sales price is not marked, (2) The consumer care details are not marked and was permitted to be compounded :7: by the Inspector, Legal Metrology by the issuance of notice dated 11.02.2019.
9. The first Petitioner rightly took advantage of the same and instead of either defending or challenging the said notice, decided to compound the offence alleged in terms of Section 48 of Legal Metrology Act, and as per the table provided to the show cause notice, the Petitioner made payment for a sum of Rs.5,000/- being the compounding fee for such an offence.
10. It is trite law that once an offence is compounded, no prosecution could be initiated as regards the said compounded offence. By compounding an offence, the entire prosecution for the offence comes to an end. In the present case, the first Petitioner having paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compounding of an offence alleged under Section 18, punishable under Section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, the prosecution towards the said offence came to an end and no further prosecution could have been initiated by the :8: respondent against the Petitioner for the very same offence.
11. However, the submission made by Sri. Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP, that the complaint as filed is not only for the offence as regards the supply made by the first Petitioner to M/s. Sham Foot Ware, but also as regards the supply made to other vendors requires to be considered. According to him, each supply would amount to an offence, the prosecution in respect of those offences have not been compounded.
12. Though that may appear to be the case, the fact is that there is only one package used ro sale by the petitioners and the petitioners have supplied the goods with the same packaging to several retailers. It is not that, the infractions alleged against the petitioners are different for different sales, the infractions are one and the same (1) retail sale price is not marked, (2) the consumer care detain are not marked. Once the packaging is done this infractions :9: has become equally applicable to all packages which have been sold by the petitioners. Such being the case merely because there are multiple sales or multiple supplies, it cannot be said that each sale or each supply would amount to a distrinct offence requiring separate compounding.
13. Though there are multiple notices which have been issued, the infractions remains one and the same. It is that infractions which is a violation of Rule 6(1)(e) and Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules,. 2011 and is punishable under Section 36 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The infractions remaining only one, the violation remaining only one and the same having been compounded, there cannot be multiple compounding or multiople prosecutions as alleged against the petitioners.
14. In fact, a perusal of the complaint in C.C.No.2768/2019 though details out the various sales made by the petitioners, it is only one complaint : 10 : which has been filed insofar as the petitioners and the retailers are concerned.
15. In this age of mass manufacture/production and mass sales it would be a travarsity of justice if for the same infraction, multiple prosecution is lawful and or the State demands for multiple compounding. So long as the infraction remains common, it would have to be considered to be one violation.
16. Applying the same in the present case, the infraction alleged against the petitioners being the same two aspects that is (i) retail sales price is not marked, (ii) the consumer care details are not marked, the compounding for one offence would amount to compounding of the infraction in respect of all the packages supplied by the petitioners. In view thereof, the submission made by Sri. Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP is rejected, the petition is allowed by quashing the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2768/2019 pending : 11 : on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gokak.
SD/-
JUDGE *Svh/-