Karnataka High Court
Saj Food Products Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100031/2021
Between
1. SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd.,
(A Unit of Aparna Group)
Purna Bhaban, No.5/1
Acharya Jagadish Chandra
Bose Road, Kolkata-700 020
Rep. by its General Manager
Legal & Corporate Affairs
Mr.Debasish Bhattacharya.
2. Mr.Vijay Kumar Singh
s/o late Baij Nath Singh
Aged about 50 years
Director, SAJ Food Products
Pvt. Ltd., Purna Bhaban
No.5/1, Acharya Jagadish
Chandra Bose Road
Kolkata - 700 020.
3. Mr.Arpan Paul
s/o Mr.Keishnadas Paul
Aged about 41 years
Director, SAJ Food Products
Pvt. Ltd., Purna Bhaban
No.5/1, Acharya Jagadish
Chandra Bose Road
Kolkata - 700 020.
2
4. Ms.Manjusri Paul
w/o Mr.Krishnadas Paul
Aged about 73 years
Director, SAJ Food Products
Pvt. Ltd., Purna Bhaban
No.5/1, Acharya Jagadish
Chandra Bose Road
Kolkata - 700 020.
5. Ms.Devika Paul
w/o Mr.Arpan Paul
Aged about 39 years
Director, SAJ Food Products
Pvt. Ltd., Purna Bhaban
No.5/1, Acharya Jagadish
Chandra Bose Road
Kolkata - 700 020.
6. Mr.Phalguni Chaudhuri
s/o late Nabakumar Chaudhuri
Aged about 51 years
Executive Director, SAJ Food Products
Pvt. Ltd., Purna Bhaban
No.5/1, Acharya Jagadish
Chandra Bose Road
Kolkata - 700 020. ...Petitioners
(By Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Counsel for Sri Aravind D Kulkarni Advocate)
And
State of Karnataka
Represented by
Inspector of Legal Metrology
Gokak Subdivision
P&T & Bank Building
APMC Yard, Gokak-591307
Belgaum District. ... Respondent
(By Sri Ramesh Chigari, HCGP)
3
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records in CC
No.5333/2019 pending on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and
JMFC, Gokak and to set aside the order dated 9.11.2019
(Annexure-B) passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC in CC
No.5333/2019 and quash the complaint in Crime
No.1201653/19-20 registered as CC No.5333/2019 filed by the
respondent (Annexure-A).
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The 1st petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 with the object of manufacturing and sale of biscuits, cookies, cakes, etc. The petitioners No.2 and 3 are the Joint Managing Directors and petitioner Nos.4 to 6 are individual Directors in the said company.
2. On 7.5.2019, the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Gokak Sub-Division, the respondent herein, inspected the premises of M/s.Experto Bakery and allegedly having noticed certain violations of the Act and Rules in one batch of the packages of `Coco Malai' biscuit, proceeded to seize 10 pre- 4 packed packages of `Coco Malai' biscuit from the said premises. A panchanama was drawn by the respondent to that effect.
3. Upon such seizure, the respondent issued a notice dated 8.5.2019 under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short `Act'), alleging that the seized packages of the 1st petitioner is in violation of the Act and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short `Rules) for the following two reasons:
"But not the same words as :- Net Weight, Net Measure, OR Net Number. The words "NET WEIGHT"
is not defined in the Rules. Thereby the common word as "Net quantify" is defined under Rule 2(f) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules 2011.
The Net quantity of "105 g" is not specified in sl, no, 3 of Schedule-II of Rule 5(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules 2011, which reads as follows:-
THE SECOND SCHEDULE (See rule 5(1)) Commodities to be packed in specified quantities The following commodities shall be packed in such quantities by weight, measure or number as are specified in the corresponding entries against them.
Sl. Commodities Quantities in
No. which to be
packed
1. 2 3
5
1. Baby Food
2. Weaning Food
3. Biscuits 25g, 50g, 60g,
75g, 100g,
120g, 150g,
200g, 250g,
300g, 350g,
400g thereafter
in multiples of
100g up to 1 kg
and thereafter
in multiples of
500g up to 5
kg.
Hence it is a violation of Schedule -II of Rule 5(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules 2011, read with Section 18(1) & Punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act 2009,
5) The Consumer complaint particulars is not declare in accordance with Rules 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules 2011, which reads as follows:
The declaration made on the package is as follows:- For complaints/suggestions in relation to the product please write to our Bisk Farm Consumer Service at :-5/1 A J C Bose Rod Kolkatta-700020 call us +91 33 22818219 OR Email us at [email protected].
But you have used the word "OR" in between the postal address, Tele phone number & E mail. Which is not correct. Furnishing all the details as per Rule 6(2) on the package for consumer complaints without declaring the word "OR" is mandatory.
Hence it is a violation of Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules 2011, read 6 with Section 18(1) & punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act 2009."
4. The 1st petitioner sent a suitable reply to the respondent, thereby pointing out that none of the so called violations pointed out by the respondents, constitutes the violations and does not attract penal provisions of the Act. The petitioners state that the respondent without considering the reply filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners.
5. The learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 31 and 36 of the Act against the petitioners herein. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
6. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would make the following submission:
i) When the manufacturer or importer sells the products on valued based package, there is no requirement to make declaration as specified in Rule 6 of the Rules.7
ii) The name and complete address of the manufacturer, packer, importer as required under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules is marked, which is evident from the biscuit packets seized by the complainant, which was produced along with show- cause notice issued to the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State would submit that the petitioners having violated the provisions of the Act and Rules, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Before adverting to the issue involved, Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules are reproduced hereunder:
Rule 5:
"5. Specific commodities to be packed and sold in recommended standard packages.-(1) The commodities specified in the Second Schedule shall 8 be packed for sale, distribution or delivery in such standard quantities as are specified in that Schedule.
Provided that if the Competent Authority under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) fixed and notified the standard quantity of any essential commodity, the standard quantity of such essential commodities as fixed and notified shall prevail.
(2) When one or more packages intended for retail sale are grouped together for being sold as a retail package on promotional offer, every package of the group shall comply with provisions of rule 6.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Second Schedule, the manufacturer of importer may sell the value based package in terms of Re.1, Rs.2, Rs.3, R.4, Rs.4, Rs.6, Rs.7, Rs.8, Rs.9 and Rs.10 after making the other declarations specified in rule 6."
Rule 6:
"6. Declarations to be made on every package.
-(1) Every package shall bear thereon or on the label securely affixed thereto, a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter as, to -
(a) the name and address of the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer is not the packer, the name and address of the manufacturer and packer and for any imported package the name and address of the importer shall be mentioned.
Explanation I.- If any name and address of a company is mentioned on the label without any 9 qualifying words 'manufactured by' or 'packed by', it shall be presumed that such name and address shall be that of the manufacturer and the liability shall be determined accordingly;
Explanation II. - If the brand name and address of the brand owner appear on the label as a marketer, then the brand owner shall be held responsible for any violation of these rules and action as may be required shall be initiated against the deemed manufacturer and in the event of more than one name and address appearing in the label, prosecution shall be launched against the manufacturer indicated on the label in the first place and not against all of them.
[Explanation III. - In respect of packages containing food articles, the provisions of this sub- rule shall not apply, and instead, the requirement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) and the rules made there under shall apply;]"
10. A reading of Rule 5(3) of the Rules specifies that notwithstanding anything contained in the Second Schedule, the manufacturer or importer may sell the value based package in terms of Re.1, Rs.2, Rs.3, Rs.4, Rs.5, Rs.6, Rs.7, Rs.8, Rs.9 and Rs.10 after making the other declarations specified in Rule 6 of the Rules. In the present case, the petitioners have sold the product on value based packages and as such there is no requirement to make declaration as specified in Second Schedule read with Rule 5(1) of the Rules. Hence, the allegation that the 10 petitioners have contravened Rule 5(1) of the Rules is without any substance.
11. Rule 6 of the Rules specifies that the name and address of the manufacturer or where the manufacturer is not the packer, the name and address of the manufacturer and packer and for any imported package the name and address of the importer shall be mentioned.
12. Rule 6(1)(b) of the Rules specifies that the common or generic names of the commodity contained in the package and in case of packages with more than one product, the name and number of quantity of each product shall be mentioned on the packages.
13. A perusal of the label which is seized by the Inspector - respondent herein clearly discloses that there is no contravention of Rule 5(1) and Rule 6(1)(b) of the Rules and all the requirements of Rule 6 are satisfied. Hence, the registration of complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 31 and 11 36 of the Act requires to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.5333/2019 pending on the file of the I Addl. JMFC, Gokak insofar as it relates to the petitioners is hereby set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm