Karnataka High Court
The Company, M/S Hindustan Unilever ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11115/2013
BETWEEN:
The Company,
M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd.,
Unilever House, B.D. Sawanth Marg,
Chakala, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099,
Represented by Mali Santosh
Regional legal Manager.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri.Ravi B.Naik, Senior Advocate for Shri.J.Basavaraj,
Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
The Inspector of Legal Metrology,
Hubli Sub-Divison-1, Mehta Chambers,
Gopankoppa Road, Keshwapur,
Hubli, Karnataka.
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri.V.M.Banakar, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 seeking to quash the complaint and entire
proceedings (Annexure-A) against petitioner only, initiated by the
2
respondent in C.C.No.1123/2013 pending on the file of the JMFC I
Court, Hubli, for the offences punishable under Legal Metrology Act,
2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules 2011, and
the order of taking cognizance dated 23.05.2013 under Section 18(1)
of Legal Metrology Act.
This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard Shri.Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner.
2. The present petition is filed in the following background:
The complainant namely, the Inspector of Legal Metrology has filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hubli, registered in C.C.No.1123/2013 on 23.05.2013 for the offences punishable under Rules 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 18 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules', for brevity) and Sections 15(1), 49(1), 18(1) and 31 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for brevity). It transpires that the respondent herein in his capacity as the Inspector of Legal Metrology had issued notice to the petitioner alleging the violation of several provisions of the Rules and Act, 3 dated 02.01.2013, to which, a reply was issued by the petitioner dated 08.02.2013, explaining that there is no such alleged violation of the Rules or the provisions of the Act. The complainant on the allegations, had visited and inspected the shop of accused No.1, namely, M/s Prakash Traders, Gandhi Market, Hubli, on 16.11.2012, he had found six units of Axe Pulse package covered with a plastic wrapper, which is a transparent wrapper around the product to keep the same intact. The complainant however, alleged that the plastic packing also should contain details as envisaged under Section 18(1) of the Act. The further allegations that the petitioner-company had failed to furnish the details of the directors and partners, has called upon to furnish under letter dated 13.09.2011 and therefore, violated Rule 15(1)(b) punishable under Section 40 of the Act, had lodged a complaint in C.C.No.1123/2013 on 23.05.2013, punishable under Rules 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 18 of the Rules and Sections 15(1) 49(1), 18(1) and 31 of the Act. The Magistrate having taken cognizance as on 23.05.2013, has issued process, there is no indication of sworn statement having been recorded nor has the complainant mentioned 4 that he was duly authorized to file a complaint. In spite of which, the learned Magistrate has directed issuance of summons for violation of the aforesaid provisions. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present petition.
3. Without entering upon the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, on the face of it, it is found that there is no authorization accompanying the complaint, that by itself is an infirmity, which should not have compelled the Magistrate to take cognizance. Notwithstanding the fact that the Inspector of Legal Metrology being a Government servant, need not be examined on oath at the time of the Court below taking cognizance. It was further necessary that the complainant should have negated that he was authorized by the Directors or the Controller of Legal Metrology to initiate proceedings. No document made available to indicate that he was duly authorized. The complaint also does not specifically state that he was duly authorized to initiate the proceedings. This Court in the case of the Manager, Asian Paints Vs. the Inspector of Legal Metrology, 2002 Crl.J. 3869, has taken the view that, when there is 5 no mention of the complaint that the complainant was duly authorized by the Directors or other competent authority under the Act, and when no document is produced to show such authorization, it is a serious lacuna, whereby the registration of a case and issuance of process against the accused would be bad in law.
4. Therefore, on that short ground, the petition is allowed. The proceedings before the Court below are quashed. This would not bar initiation of fresh proceedings, if it is so warranted in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE MBS/-