Karnataka High Court
M/S. Manish Traders vs State on 14 December, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER-2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P.NO.100803/2021
BETWEEN
1. M/S. MANISH TRADERS
SY. NO.257/3A, LAXMI ROAD
BHARAT NAGAR, SHAHAPUR
BELAGAUM-590003.
2. MANISH RAJAKUMAR RAMCHANDANI
S/O. RAJKUMAR, AGE. 38 YEARS
PROPRIETOR M/S. MANISH TRADERS
SY.NO.257/3A, LAXMI ROAD
BHARAT NAGAR, SHAHAPUR
BELAGAUM-590003.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNSWAMY.B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY KARNATAKA
LEGAL METROLOGY OFFICER
GOKAK SUB-DIVISION,
GOKAK-591307.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2019 AND ALSO
PROHIBITORY ORDER DATED 18.02.2021 IN C.C.NO. 5333/2019
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOKAK, BELAGAVI, IN
SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND EXONERATE THE
PETITIONERS NO.31 AND 32 OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S.1
AND 36 OF LEGAL METROLOGY ACT.
-2-
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ON THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioners being accused Nos.31 and 32 in C.C.No.5333/2019 on the file of the I Addl.J.M.F.C Court at Gokak,(for short 'the trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 31 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act'), seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant-Inspector of Legal Metrology, Gokak Sub-Division, filed the private complaint against various accused including the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.31 and 32. The specific allegations made against the present petitioners are -3- that when the complainant visited the bakery owned by these accused, 10 pre-packed Horlicks Biscuits packages were found, on which net weight and consumer care details were not declared as per packaged Commodity Rules. Thereby, they have committed the offences under Sections 31 and 36 of the Act.
4. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences and registered C.C.No.5333/2019 for the above said offences and the petitioners are before this Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
5. Heard learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjunswamy. B. Hiremath., for the petitioners and learned HCGP Sri.Praveen.K.Uppar.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the Code of -4- Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') before holding the search. No warrant was obtained for holding the search and seizure and no reasons are assigned as to why such warrant was not obtained. He further submitted that the biscuits in question were in pre-packed condition and net weight and consumer care details are very much visible on the packet itself as per Annexure-C. Therefore, the packet, which was said to have been seized from the bakery belonging to the petitioners was having the details, as required for a pre-packed commodities. Admittedly, this case relates to a pre- packed commodity and Rule 5 (3) of the Legal Metrology (packed commodity) Rules 2011 is applicable. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, prays for allowing the petition.
-5-
7. Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that since there was urgency the warrant for search and seizer could not be obtained. The complainant visited the bakery in question and seized the Horlikcs biscuit packages, after noting that the weight and consumer care details are not properly mentioned as required under schedule (2) appended to Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rule 2011. Hence, the initiation of the criminal proceedings is before the trial Court, which may not be interfered with. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
8. Perused the material on record.
9. The point that would arise for consideration of this Court is as under:
"Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 31 and 36 of the Act, is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C?"-6-
10. My answer to the above is in the affirmative for the following:
: REASONS :
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.4502/2020 (GM-RES), wherein the coordinate bench of this Court considering as to whether the officer under the Act is required to obtain the warrant for the purpose of search and seizure of the premises where goods which are in violation of the Act and Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules 2011 are located, had answered the point in the affirmative stating that when there is adequate time to obtain a warrant, the same ought to be obtained. However, if an urgent search is to be conducted and it may be difficult to get a search warrant, certain safeguards will have to be observed and conditions are to be fulfilled. In the -7- present case, no case of urgency is made out. However, nothing has been stated in the complaint regarding the urgency nor it is stated as to why the warrant is not obtained or no reasons are assigned as to why warrant is not necessary for holding the search and seizure.
12. As per the complaint, the commodities, which were seized from the bakery belonging to the petitioners are 10 pre-packed packages of Horlicks Biscuits and allegation is that the net weight and consumer care details are not declared as per packaged commodity Rules. Annexure-C is the photo copy of the pre-packed commodity, wherein the net weight of the packet is mentioned as 85 grams and the consumer care details are also mentioned including the toll free number, Mail I.D, address etc., -8-
13. The word pre-packaged commodity is defined under Section 2 (l) of the Act, means a commodity which without the purchasers being present is placed in a package of whatever nature, whether sealed or not, so that the product contained therein has a pre-determined quantity.
14. Rule 4 of the Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011, refers to the regulations for pre-packing and sale etc., of commodities in packaged form. Rule 5 deals with specific commodities to be packed and sold in recommended standard packages. As per this Rule, the commodities specified in the Second Schedule shall be packed for sale, distribution or delivery in such standard quantities as are specified in that schedule. However, Rule 5(3) states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Second schedule, the manufacturer or importer may sell the -9- value based package in terms of Re.1/- to Re.10/- as stated therein, after making the other declarations specified in rule 6. In view of Rule 5(3), the specifications for package as mentioned in rule 5(1) are not applicable when the manufacturer or importer may sell the value based package in terms of Rs.1/-, 2/-.... Rs.10/-, after making the other declarations as specified in rule 6. It is not the contention of the prosecution that there is any violation in making declaration as specified in rule
6. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the case clearly discloses that the biscuits packets are pre-packed packages containing its net weight and consumer care details, as required under law. Therefore, the complainant is not successful in prima-facie showing any violations either under the act or under the rules. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners-accused is liable to be
- 10 -
quashed. Hence, I answer the above point under consideration in the affirmative and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
: ORDER :
The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners-accused No.31 and 32 in C.C.No.5333/2019, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Gokak, for the offences punishable under Sections 31 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, is quashed.
Consequently, the order passed in C.C.No.5333/2019 dated 19.11.2019 and
18.02.2021, by learned Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC., Gokak, are also quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE AM/-