Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioners have challenged their prosecution in C.C.No.2579/2015 on the file the Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short) for the offences punishable under Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (in short Act, 2009) and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (in short Rules, 2011).

2. A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was lodged contending that the complainant along with staff visited the premises of the accused and found three pre-packed package of Digiflic Mineral Water Pot and three pre-packed package of Electronic Kettle, on which, complete address of the manufacturer was not legible and prominent and the customer care telephone number was not declared. Likewise the maximum retail price was not declared on the principal display panel on the pre-packed Digiflic Mineral Water as per the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, rule 2(m). It was alleged that non-declaration on such pre-packaged commodity violated Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The Trial Court took Cognizance and issued process and secured the accused. The substance of the accusation was read over to the accused, who denied them and claimed to be tried. Later, the accused have filed this petition challenging the prosecution on various grounds.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader.

6. Section 18 of Act, 2009 provides for declarations on pre-packaged commodities and the same reads as hereunder:

Section 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.

(2) Any advertisement mentioning the retail sale price of a pre-packaged commodity shall contain a declaration as to the net quantity or number of the commodity contained in the package in such form and manner as may be prescribed."

7. The words "unless such pre-package is in such standard quantities or number and bears there on such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed", indicates that such declarations must be made. In order to know when an offence under Section 36 of the Act, 2009 is said to be committed, it is apposite to extract section 36 of the Act, 2009:

8. Therefore an offence under section 36 (1) or (2) of the Act, 2009 is said to be committed when "any pre-packaged commodity does not conform to the declarations on the package as provided in the Act" or when there any "error in net quantity". Therefore, an offence under Section 36 of the Act, 2009 would be committed when the articles inside the pre-packed packages do not correspond or conform to the declaration made on the package as provided in the Act. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondent that the contents of the pre-package did not confirm to the declaration made on the package. In so far as the declaration on a pre- package commodity, rule 6, of the Rules, 2011. Provides for the declarations to be made on every package. Any failure to make a declaration in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules, 2011 is treated as an offence which is punishable with fine under Rule 32 of the rules, 2011 which reads as follows: