Karnataka High Court
M/S Dabar India Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2023
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737
CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100673 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4, SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA GHAZIABAD,
UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. MR. AMIT BURMAN,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
3. MR. MOHIT BURMAN,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
VIJAYALAKSHMI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
M KANKUPPI
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
KANKUPPI
Date: 2023.12.06
4. MR. ADITY BURMAN,
13:24:24 +0530
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
5. MR. AJAY DUA,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737
CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021
6. MR. AJIT MOHAN SHARAN,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
7. MS. FALGUNI NAYAR,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
8. MR. MOHIT MALHOTRA,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
9. MR. P. D. NARANG,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
10. MR. P.N. VIJAY,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
11. DR. S. NARAYAN,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
12. MR. SAKET BURMAN,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737
CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
13. MR. SK BHATTACHARYA,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
14. MR. RC BHARGAVA,
M/S DABAR INDIA LIMITED,
PLOT NO.22, SITE 4 SAIBABAD,
SAIBABAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010,
R/BY DIRECTOR AND MANUFACTURER.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY,
GOKAK SUB-DIVISION, GOKAK,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.5349/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
GOKAK FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 31 AND 36
OF LEGAL METROLOGY ACT 2009 FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 18(1)
OF LEGAL METROLOGY ACT, 2009 AND RULE 6(10), 6(1)(b)(d) AND
(c), (da) AND 12(6) OF THE LEGAL METROLOGY (PACKAGE
COMMODITIES) RULES, 2011.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737
CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 14 sought quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.5349/2019 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Gokak for the offence punishable under Sections 31 and 36 of The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 for violation of Section 18(1) of The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for brevity) and Rule 6(10), 6(1) (b) (d) and (c) (e), (da) and 12 (6) of The Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules' for brevity).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the alleged violation of the Act and Rules, the punishment could be imposed in terms of Section 36 of the Act. As per Section 36 of the Act, for the first offence the punishment is imposition of fine and for -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737 CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021 second offence it is enhanced fine and furthermore once an order is passed under Section 36 of the Act, an appeal would lie under Section 50 of the Act. It is his further contention that the intention of the provision of law is to give an opportunity to the accused persons and to improve the situation. It is his further submission that, this Court under similar facts and circumstances, in Criminal Petition No.100861/2015 decided on 28.09.2016 and Criminal Petition No.101978/2018 decided on 12.06.2009, has quashed the proceedings. The present facts of the case are similar and is covered by the above decisions and on these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and quash the proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that there is substantial violation of the said Act and Rules. The petitioners/accused are liable to be prosecuted and punished. He further submitted that, if at all he wants to challenge the action taken in this behalf, he can file an appropriate application before the concerned Court for -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737 CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021 discharge. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in case of the violation of Sections 15 to 20, 22, 25, 27 to 39 and 41 of the Act, there will be a penalty and an order has to be passed imposing the penalty as provided under Section 36 of the Act. It is beneficial to quote Sections 31 and 36, which reads as under:
31. Penalty for non-production of documents, etc.--Whoever, being required by or under this Act or the rules made thereunder to submit returns, maintain any record or register, or being required by the Director or the Controller or any legal metrology officer to produce before him for inspection any weight or measure or any document, register or other record relating thereto, omits or fails without any reasonable excuse, so to do, shall be -7- NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737 CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021 punished with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and for the second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine.
"36. Penalty for selling, etc., of non- standard packages.- Whoever manufactures, packs, imports, sells, distributes, delivers or otherwise transfers, offers, exposes or possesses for sale, or causes to be sold, distributed, delivered or otherwise transferred, offered, exposed for sale any pre-packaged commodity which does not conform to the declarations on the package as provided in this Act, shall be punished with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, for the second offence, with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and for the subsequent offence, with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with both.
Whoever manufactures or packs or imports or causes to be manufactured or packed or imported, any pre-packaged commodity, with error in net quantity as may be prescribed shall be punished with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737 CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021 which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and for the second and subsequent offence, with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with both."
7. A close reading of the said Section makes it clear that if any offence has been committed under the said Section, the penalty has been stated as provided in the said Act with three categories. The order passed under Sections 31 and 36 of the Act can be challenged by way of appeal under Section 50 of the Act. It is beneficial to refer the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, which reads as under:
"50. Appeals.--(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie,--
(a) from every decision or order under sections 15 to 20, section 22, section 25, sections 27 to 39, section 41 or any rule made under sub-section (3) of section 52 by the legal metrology officer appointed under section 13, to the Director;
(b) from every decision or order made by the Director of Legal Metrology under sections 15 to 20, section 22, section 25, sections 27 to 39, section 41 or any rule made under sub-section (3) of section 52, to -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737 CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021 the Central Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by that Government;
(c) from every decision given by the Controller of Legal Metrology under delegated powers of Director Legal Metrology to the Central Government;
(d) from every decision given or order made under sections 15 to 18, sections 23 to 25, sections 27 to 37, sections 45 to 47 or any rule made under sub- section (3) of section 53 by any legal metrology officer appointed under section 14, to the Controller; and
(e) from every decision given or order made by the Controller under sections 15 to 18, sections 23 to 25, sections 27 to 37, sections 45 to 47 or any rule made under sub-section (3) of section 53 not being an order made in appeal under clause (d), to the State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by that Government.
(2) Every such appeal shall be preferred within sixty days from the date on which the impugned order was made: Provided that the appellate authority may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, permit the appellant to prefer the appeal within a further period of sixty days.
(3) On receipt of any such appeal, the appellate authority shall, after giving the parties to the appeal, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after making such inquiry as it deems proper, make such order, as it
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737 CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021 may think fit, confirming, modifying or reversing the decision or order appealed against or may send back the case with such direction as it may think fit for a fresh decision or order after taking additional evidence, if necessary.
(4) Every appeal shall be preferred on payment of such fees, as may be prescribed.
(5) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may on its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding including a proceeding in appeal in which any decision or order has been made, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such decision or order and may pass such orders thereon as it may think fit:
Provided that no decision or order shall be varied under this sub-section so as to prejudicially affect any person unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action."
8. Section 31 of the Act clearly indicates if there is any non production of documents as sought by the Director or the Controller or any legal metrology officer, the person will be punished with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and for the second or subsequent
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737 CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021 offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine. On perusal of the complaint lodged by Legal Metrology Officer against these petitioners there is no mention of these petitioners committing the offences for the second and subsequent time.
9. Section 36 of the Act clearly indicates that, if there is any violation, the accused shall be punished with fine, which may extend to Rs.25,000/- for the first offence and for the second offence with fine which may extend to Rs.50,000/- and for the subsequent offences, a minimum fine of Rs.50,000/-, which may be extended up to Rs.1,00,000/- or with imprisonment for one year for both. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, it is their first offence and under these circumstances, an appropriate order ought to have been passed under Section 36 of the Act and no such order has been passed.
10. The proceedings initiated clearly goes to show that there is abuse of process of law and the Rules and the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737 CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021 said Act has not been properly followed. The petitioners have made out a case to quash the entire proceedings. It is also noted here that in similar facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in criminal petition No.100861/2015 and Criminal Petition No.101978/2018 has quashed the entire proceedings. In that light, the entire proceedings are requires to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.5349/2019 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak, for the offences punishable under Sections 31 and 36 of The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 for violation of Section 18(1) of The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rule 6(10), 6(1) (b) (d) and (c) (e), (da) and 12 (6) of The Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011, are quashed.
However, if there is violation of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules, the respondent is at liberty to take
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13737 CRL.P No. 100673 of 2021 appropriate action as contemplated under the Legal Metrology Act, if they are advised to do so.
Sd/-
JUDGE AM CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17