Gauhati High Court
Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Inspector Of Legal Metrology on 10 March, 2022
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010044772022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./200/2022
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED
A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,
1913, AND AN EXISTING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1913 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
UNILEVER HOUSE, B.D. SAWANT MARG, CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E),
MUMBAI- 400099, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MONDAKINI
MAHANTA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT JJ 081, DLF NEW TOWN
HEIGHTS ACTION AREA III, NEWTOWN, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL 700135
VERSUS
INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 34, NAVAGIRI PATH, RED CROSS ROAD,
CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM- 781003.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S KHOUND
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
10.03.2022 Heard Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ganguly and Mr. R. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deori, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Page No.# 2/4 Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent State of Assam for the respondent no. 2.
2. At the inception, Mr. Mookherjee, learned senior counsel has submitted that he may be permitted to make the State of Assam as a party-respondent in this petition. The prayer is allowed. Mr. R. Sarmah, learned counsel assisting Mr. Mookherjee is permitted to implead the State of Assam as the party-respondent no. 2 in this petition under his own handwriting before the Court Master. Upon such impleadment, the Office to cause the necessary correction in the CIS.
3. This criminal petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC], 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner seeking setting aside and quashing of the criminal proceeding launched against the petitioner by way of a complaint case, C.R. Case no. 280/2020 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [M] at Guwahati ['the trial court', for short].
4. The prosecution has been initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent no. 1, Inspector of Legal Metrology, Guwahati. The petitioner is a public limited company and is a manufacturer of "Kwality Walls Crunchilicious Butterscotch" and "Kwality Walls Majestic Kesar Pista" Ice Creams. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant took samples of Crunchilicious Butterscotch of net volume of 375 grams/700 ml and Majestic Kesar Pista weighing net volume 370 grams/700 ml from a retail sale counter on 25.06.2019. With the allegation that there were difference in maximum retail prices [MRP] in the said two pre- packaged commodity samples, the complaint has been lodged for violation of Rule 18[2A] of the Legal Metrology [Packaged Commodities] Rules, 2011 read with Section 18[1] of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The specific allegation is that in the pre-packaged sample of Kwality Walls Crunchilicious Butterscotch, two maximum retail prices [MRPs] were mentioned. In respect of the Northeast Region, the price was mentioned as Rs. 139/- and for the rest of India, the price was mentioned as Rs. 129/-. In respect of pre-packaged sample of Majestic Kesar Pista, the price for the Northeast Region was mentioned as Rs. 165/- and for the rest of India, it was mentioned as Rs. 155/-.
5. Mr. Mookherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Page No.# 3/4 the allegation of dual maximum retail price is misconceived on the face of the provisions contained in Rule 18[2] of the Legal Metrology [Packaged Commodities] Rules, 2011. It is his submission that to attract Rule 18[2A], the differences in price have to appear in two samples of an identical pre-packaged commodity. Had two different maximum retail prices [MRPs] been occurred in two identical pre-packaged samples of Kwality Walls Crunchilicious Butterscotch, the breach of Rule 18[2A] would have been attracted in such an event. Rule 18[2A] is attracted only in case the manufacturer, etc. either adopts any unfair trade practices or any restrictive trade practices, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is his further submission that the reference to Section 18[1] of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 in the complaint is also misconceived. It is his contention that two different prices for two different regions in the same pre-packaged commodity sample does not amount to breach of Rule 18[2A].
6. Issue notice, returnable in 4 [four] weeks.
7. As Mr. Deori, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 2, no formal notice need to be issued upon the said respondents. Mr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner shall, however, furnish requisite number of extra copies of the petition with annexures to Mr. Deori and Mr. Parashar within 2 [two] working days.
8. For reference, Rule 18[2A] of the Legal Metrology [Packaged Commodities] Rules, 2011 is reproduced hereunder :-
Rule 18[2A] - Unless otherwise specifically provided under any other law, no manufacturer or packer or importer shall declare different maximum retail prices on an identical pre-packaged commodity by adopting restrictive trade practices or unfair trade practices as defined under clause [c] of sub-section [1] of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. It prima facie appears, on perusal of Rule 18[2A] of the Legal Metrology [Packaged Commodities] Rules, 2011, that the breach of said Rule would be attracted when two identical samples of the same pre-packaged commodity bear two different maximum retail prices [MRPs].
Page No.# 4/4
10. Having regard to the projection made on behalf of the petitioner and Rule 18[2A] of the Legal Metrology [Packaged Commodities] Rules, 2011 read with Section 18[1] of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, it is provided that till the returnable date, the further proceeding of the complaint case, C.R. Case no. 280/2020, presently pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [M] at Guwahati, shall remain suspended.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant