Karnataka High Court
Daniel Norbert Babalaski vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2022
-1-
CRL.P No. 7374 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7374 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. DANIEL NORBERT BABALASKI
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BELLA PREMIER HAPPY HYGEINE CARE PVT LTD.,
AMBATHURAI, GANDIGRAMA
DINDIGUL-624309
TAMIL NADU,
Digitally signed
by V
MANJUSHA BAI 2. BELLA PREMIER HAPPY HYGEINE CARE PVT LTD
Location: High
Court of AMBATHURAI, GANDIGRAMA
Karnataka
DINDIGUL-624309
TAMIL NADU,
REP BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR DANIEL NORBERT BABALASKI
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUNDARESH C R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE LEGAL METROLOGY INSPECTOR,
MANGALORE SUB DIVISION,
BIKARNAKATTE,
MANGALORE-575005
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP)
-2-
CRL.P No. 7374 of 2017
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO PROCEEDINGS, SUMMONS AND THE
COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.2726/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, FOR AN ALLEGED
OFFENCE P/U/S 18(1) R/W SECTION 36(1) AND 49 OF LEGAL
METROLOGY ACT 2009 AND UNDER RULE 6(1)(C) OF THE
LEGAL METROLOGY (PACKAGED COMMODITIES) RULE 2011 BE
QUASHED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are doing business in several commodities including diapers and that their premises were inspected by the authorities. It was found that they were manufacturing and selling a pre-packed baby diapers called 'Bella' baby diapers and net quantity on the packets was not marked in standard units. This being in violation of Rule 6(1)(c) of Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities) Rule 2011, the respondent authority has initiated action against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 18(1), 49 and -3- CRL.P No. 7374 of 2017 36(1) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 6(1)(c) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities) Rule 2011 and has filed a private complaint before JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru, D.K. The learned judge has taken cognizance of the said offence and has issued summons to the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition is filed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they are not guilty of the offences alleged and that the diapers is not mentioned in Rule 14 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities) Rule 2011 and for that reason, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the said offences. The petitioners also rely upon the decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.1357 of 2006.
3. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is not being prosecuted for violating Rule 14 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities) Rule 2011 and he is being prosecuted for violating under the provisions of Rule 6(1)(c) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities) Rule 2011 and the said Rules does not specify any commodity and it is applicable for -4- CRL.P No. 7374 of 2017 all the packaged commodities and for that reason it is contended that the decision in Crl.P.No.1357 of 2006 is not applicable in the instant case.
4. As contended by learned High Court Government Pleader, perusal of the records show that proceedings against the petitioners herein has been initiated for violation of the Rule 6(1)(c) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities) Rule 2011 and not Rule 14 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities) Rule 2011 and Crl.P.No.1357 of 2006 does not pertain to violation of Rule 6(1)(c) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities) Rule 2011.
5. Rule 6(1)(c) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities) Rule 2011 reads as under:
6. Declarations to be made on every package:- (1) Every package shall bear thereon or on label securely affixed thereto, a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter as, to-
(a) xxx -5- CRL.P No. 7374 of 2017 (b) xxx
(c) The net quantity, in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity contained in the package or where the commodity is packed or sold by number, the number of the commodity contained in the package shall be mentioned.
6. Section 18(1), 36(1) and 49 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read as under:
18. Declarations on pre-packaged commodities:- (1) No person shall manufacture, pack, sell, import, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged commodity unless such package is in such standard quantities or number and bears thereon such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed.
36(1) Penalty for selling, etc., of non-standard packages:- (1) 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.
-6-CRL.P No. 7374 of 2017
49. Offences by companies and power of court to publish name, place of business, etc., for companies convicted:- (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company,-
(a) (i) the person, if any, who has been nominated under sub-section (2) to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company(hereinafter in this section referred to as a person responsible); or
(ii) where no person has been nominated, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company; and
(b) the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly;
Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
7. Reading of the above mentioned provisions show that when proper declaration is not made as required under law, prosecution can be initiated against the violators and accordingly prosecution has been initiated against the petitioners herein. Whether the petitioners are guilty of the -7- CRL.P No. 7374 of 2017 offences alleged or not is a matter of trial and this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot examine the same.
For the aforementioned reasons, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE AG