P.C.
1. Heard Mr. Arshad Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh More, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No.118 of 2013. The petitioner had filed the said revision application before the Sessions Court impugning the order passed by the learned Magistrate of Pune, Court Room No.4, on a complaint case No.450996 of 2007 filed by respondent No.2, the Inspector of Metrology. The respondent No.2 in the said complaint had alleged that the petitioner had violated Rule 6(1A) of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and has thereby committed offence punishable u/s 51(1) of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. The amendment in question can be reproduced as under:
"R.6(1A) Every package shall bear the name, address, telephone number, E-mail address, if available, of the person who can be or the office which can be, contacted, in case of consumer complaints."
3. The said amendment had come into force w.e.f. 14th of January, 2007. The complaint against the petitioner has been filed on 10th of December, 2007 and process has been issued on 19th of March, 2010. The premises were searched on 15th June, 2007. As such, pursuant to the search dated 15th June, 2007 the complaint was filed by the authorized officer on 10th of December, 2007 for the offence punishable u/s 51(1) of Standards of Weights and Measurement (Enforcement) Act. The learned Magistrate issued process on 19th of March, 2010.
4. The learned counsel Mr. Arshad Shaikh has submitted that respondent No.2 should not have filed the complaint against the petitioner inasmuch as there were clear directions from the Controller of Metrology that since the amendment was new and certain articles were already packed without the additional requisite information on the packages, it was necessary to give the same breathing time to the manufacturers.
5. My attention was invited to the Circular dated 12th of January, 2007. The relevant portion of the said circular can be reproduced as under:
"1) Efforts may be made to give wide publicity to these changes so as to spread awareness amongst manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers
2) The initial enforcement steps may only be in the nature of investigational surveys. Any deficiency noticed should be brought to the notice of the concerned. This is being suggested to provide an opportunity to manufacturers to update their label declarations and the seller to put in place an appropriate weighing equipment. This approach may be continued upto 30th April, 2007 and it is expected that in this initial period there would be no prosecution."
6. The learned counsel has further brought to my notice that such directions were issued to the State Governments also. The circular issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, was brought to my notice. The relevant portion of the said circular is as under:
"(b) Packages that are not found complying with the amended Rules and sold or offered for sale after 31/12/2007 will attract penal provisions under section 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976."
"4 The State Government are accordingly advised to allow to manufacturers/importers/packers and dealers time upto 31/12/2007 for complying with labelling requirements under the Packaged Commodities Rules."
7. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge took the view that since there were violation of statutory provisions, the prosecution launched by respondent No.2 against the petitioner was valid. It was held that the circular issued by the department cannot override the statutory provisions. It is possible that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in exercise of his powers u/s 397 of Cr. P. C. could not have gone beyond a particular limit. However, this Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. can look into this aspect of the case. The learned Addl. PP has not disputed the circulars produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since there were clear cut directions to the officers of the department for not launching the prosecutions till a particular date and for permitting the manufacturers to give additional information in compliance with the amended provisions on additional stickers, it was not proper on the part of respondent No.2 to file prosecution.
8. In my considered opinion, the respondent No.2 has filed this prosecution without knowledge of his superior officer. The interest of justice requires that such a prosecution should be quashed and, hence, I pass the following order:
The petition is allowed.
The prosecution against the petitioner, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court Room No.4, Pune, Vide Criminal Case No.450996 of 2007 shall stand quashed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.