Full Judgment
1 ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE10H DAY OF JULY, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8106/2013 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5358/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5357/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5359/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5393/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5394/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5395/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5396/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5397/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5398/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5399/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5400/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5401/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5360/2013 IN CRL.P NO.8106/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Leo Crasta Managing Director M/s Leo Consumer Products Private Ltd Near Karangalpady Market Karangalpady, Mangalore-575001.
2. Mrs. Sylvia Crasta Director M/s Leo Consumer Products Private Ltd Near Karangalpady Market Karangalpady, Mangalore-575001. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) ... PETITIONERS2AND:
1. State of Karnataka Rep. by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-575001.
2. Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-575001. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 29.10.2013 in C.C.No.1771/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II, Mangalore, the Petitioners, and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioners. issuing process to IN CRL.P NO.5358/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) ... PETITIONER3AND: State of Karnataka Rep. by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner In C.C.No.661/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. IN CRL.P NO.5357/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) AND: ... PETITIONER State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology 4 Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-575 101. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) …RESPONDENT to set the aside This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying order dated:13.02.2013 passed by the JMFC-II Court, Mangalore in C.C.No.660/2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner. IN CRL.P NO.5359/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) AND: ... PETITIONER State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 5 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.662/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. IN CRL.P NO.5393/2013 ... PETITIONER BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in C.C.No.664/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. 6 IN CRL.P NO.5394/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in C.C.No.665/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. IN CRL.P NO.5395/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd ... PETITIONER7K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in C.C.No.666/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. IN CRL.P NO.5396/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) ... PETITIONER8AND: State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in C.C.No.667/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. IN CRL.P NO.5397/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT9This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in C.C.No.668/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. IN CRL.P NO.5398/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in C.C.No.669/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. 10 IN CRL.P NO.5399/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in C.C.No.670/2013 pending before the J.J.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. IN CRL.P NO.5400/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director 11 Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in C.C.No.671/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. IN CRL.P NO.5401/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) ... PETITIONER12AND: State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in C.C.No.672/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. IN CRL.P NO.5360/2013 BETWEEN: Sri Viney Singh Managing Director Max Hyper Market India Private Ltd K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore Registered office at 2nd floor No.39/3 & 44, Banneraghatta Road Bangalore-560 029. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mangalore-570 041. (By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP & Sri Sandesh J.
Chouta, SPP II.) ... RESPONDENT13This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the Petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 issuing process to the Petitioner and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in C.C.No.663/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C-II Court, Mangalore, D.K. These for Admission/Hearing this day, the Court made the following: Petitions coming on ORDER
In all the above cases, the respondent-Inspector of Legal Metrology, Mangalore Sub-Division, Mangalore has submitted private complaints alleging offences against the petitioners under Sections 18(1), 31, 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for brevity) and also for violation of Rules 11(1)(e), 18, 6(1)(a),(d),(e),(f) and 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’, for brevity). In some cases, it is alleged that Rule 4, 6(1)(d) is violated and in some other cases Rules 6(1)(a),(d),(e) are violated. 14 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein strenuously contends that, though the Rules invoked by the respondent by way of the above said criminal complaints attracted violation of Rules 6(1)(d), 4 and 6(3) in some cases, but section 18(1) of the Act or 36(1) of the Act are not at all attracted. Even in Criminal Petition No.8106/2013, though Rule 6(1)(a) to (d) is attracted, but again, Sections 18, 31 and 36(1) of the Act are not at all attracted.
3. The petitioners have conceded that, there is no declaration with respect to some of the information which ought to have been made on the pre-packed packages and violation of such Rules are only punishable under Rule 32. Hence, he pleaded for quashing the proceedings for the offence under Sections 18(1), 36(1) and Section 31 of the Act.
4. Before adverting to the above said provisions, it is just and necessary to have brief factual aspects of the above said cases. 15
5. The complainant (respondent herein), the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Mangalore has in fact, visited the petitioners’ retail shops on 21.11.2012 at 4p.m. and on 27.7.2012, found illegalities. It was observed by him that, they found some pre-packed packages and on the said pre-packed packages, they found missing of the manufacturer’s address, date of manufacture/packed month and year, maximum retail price, customer care telephone number and size declared or standard declared. Further, it is alleged in the complaints that, the respondent asked the petitioners to produce the invoice relating to the said products, which are pre-packed packages, but they have not produced any such documents and therefore, alleging that it constitute an offence under Section 31 of the Act along with other offences, lodged a complaint. For the purpose of easy understanding, and avoiding confusion, a chart is prepared in order to show in which case, the 16 respondent has invoked which of the provisions of the offences alleged:- SL.NO CASE No.ALLEGATION ALLEGED12 3 4 5 PAGE No.PARA No.Pg 13 Para 6 Pg 11 Para 3 Pg. 11 Para 3 CRL. P53572013 Month and year of manufacture/packaging not declared on the packaging. CRL. P53582013 Month and year of manufacturing/pack aging not declared on additional sticker. CRL. P53592013 MRP and name of manufacturer declared on additional sticker and the customer care number not declared on the packaging. CRL. P53602013 MRP declared on additional sticker. Pg 9 Para 6 CRL. P53932013 Date of import, month and year not declared on the packaging. Pg 10 Para 6 OFFENCES ALLEGED S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(1)(d), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(3), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act (‘Act’) Read with Rule 4, 6(2), 18(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules (‘Rule’) which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(3), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(1)(d), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 17 CRL. P53942013 MRP declared on additional sticker. CRL. P53952013 Complete address of the manufacturer was not declared on the packaging. Pg 10 Para 6 CRL. P53962013 Complete address of the manufacturer was not declared on the packaging. Pg 11 Para 3 CRL. P53972013 MRP declared on additional sticker. Pg 10 Para 6 CRL. P53982013 MRP not declared on packaging. Page 10 Para 6 CRL. P53992013 MRP and manufacturing date declared on additional sticker on packaging. Pg 10 Para 6 CRL. P54002013 MRP declared on additional sticker. Pg 10 Para 6 CRL. P54012013 MRP declared on additional sticker Pg 8 Para 6 S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(3), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(1)(a), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(1)(a), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(3), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(3), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(1)(e), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(3), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(3), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act. 18
6. On careful perusal of the allegations made in all the cases, it is found that the main allegations are that the petitioners have not displayed on the pre- packed packages, the address, date of manufacture/packed month or year, maximum retail price, customer care number, declared size and declared standard unit. Except that there is no allegation of whatsoever, to the effect that, when those pre-packed packages were opened, there were any differences with regard to the weight, number and the standard quality of the articles packed. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that neither Section 18(1) nor Section 36(1) of the Act are attracted. In this background, the Court has to examine whether offence under Section 18 is made out so as to invoke Section 36 of the Act. Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act reads as follows: “Sec.18. Declarations on pre-packaged commodities
(1) No person shall manufacture, pack, sell, import, distribute, deliver, offer, 19 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. Therefore, if Section 18(1) is properly understood, there must be a declaration on the pre- packaged commodities. Thereafter, unless there is some discrepancy inside the package, regarding the weight, standard quantity and quality and number and such standard quantity or number must be contained inside the said pre-packaged commodity. If there is any violation of Section 18(1), then only section 36(1) is attracted. Section 36(1) reads thus:
20. “Sec.36 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 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. (2) 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 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 21 imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with both.” (emphasis supplied) 8. On a meaningful understanding of this provision, it is clear that the responsibility is on the persons, who pack the commodity with reference to the articles inside the said pre-packaged packages. If the commodity inside the said package does not conform to the declaration on the package, as provided in the Act, he shall be punished with fine and so on. Therefore, according to Section 18, the packaged commodity should conform to the declaration made on the packages and if there is any difference, then only Section 36 is attracted which is punishable under Section 36(1) of the Act. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that first there must be declaration on the pre-packed packages according to the Rules, that is with regard to the manufacturer’s name, address, date of manufacture, packed month and year, maximum retail price and 22 customer care telephone number and with regard to the contents the standard quantity of the commodity and number of the articles inside the package. So, if there is any violation with regard to the weight, standard quality and quantity and the number inside the package as against the declaration made, then only Section 18(1) is attracted, which is punishable under section 36(1) of the Act.
9. In order to understand the above said two provisions, it is just and necessary to make some illustrations: (i) If only the declaration is made explaining the manufacturer’s address, date of manufacture/packed month and year, maximum retail price and customer care telephone number and also declaration with regard to the size and standard quantity, but if it is found that, though the declaration is properly made, but there is difference with regard to size, weight, number and standard 23 quality, then not only the rule that is violated, but also Section 18(1) is violated. (ii) Illustration - If a declaration is made without mentioning the details/or if no declaration is made, with reference to the manufacturer’s address, date of manufacture/packed month and year, maximum retail price and customer care telephone number, declared size, quantity and quality but on opening the package, if it is found that there is any difference with regard to the standard quantity and number, then not only Rule 6 is violated, but also Section 18(1) is violated which is punishable under Section 36(1) of the Act. (iii) Illustration - If merely no declaration is made by mentioning the manufacturer’s address, date of manufacture/packed month and year, maximum retail price and customer care telephone number and declared size, number and standard, but the quantity, number, size, weight and the quality of 24 the articles which ought to have been inside the pre- packed packages is found to be perfect and correct, then the mere non-declaration on the prepaid packages of anyone of the above said declarations, then it only attracts Rule 6 of the Rules, but there is no violation of Section 18(1) which calls for punishment under Section 36(1) of the Act.
10. Therefore, it is made clear that for violation of Rule 6 in non-mentioning of the manufacturer’s address, date of manufacture/packed month and year, maximum retail price, customer care telephone number and declared size and quantity and number, there should be allegation in the complaint that on the opening of the pre-packaged packages, the Legal Metrology Officer found any difference with regard to the quantity, quality, weight, size and number of the articles inside the package. If no such allegations are available, neither Section 18(1) can be invoked nor Section 36(1) can be pressed into service. 25 11. Now coming to the above said cases, as I have already narrated the factual aspects of the case, in almost all cases except in Crl.P.No8106/2013, the allegations made against the petitioners are that they have not displayed the declaration on the pre-packed packages, the manufacturer’s address, the date of manufacture/packed month and year and maximum retail price and customer care telephone number and declared size, quality, standard, unit. There is no allegation whatsoever in the above said cases that there were any differences with regard to the size, weight or the standard, unit, or quality of the articles which were packed inside the packages. Therefore, Section 18(1) cannot be pressed into service nor Section 36(1) would come into play.
12. So far as Criminal Petition No.8106/2013 is concerned, apart from invoking Section 18(1) and 36(1) of the Act, they have also invoked Section 31 of the Act. Section 31 of the Act is with reference to 26 penalty for non-production of documents etc. The said provision reads thus: “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 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.” 13. The above said provision is attracted only when the manufacturer or retailer or seller is 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, 27 register or other record relating thereto, omits or fails without any reasonable excuse, so to do, then the person would be punishable under the above said provision. Therefore, if any record or register or with regard to returns maintained by the manufacturer or the retailer is not produced then section 31 is attracted and also any weight or measure is asked to be produced or any document, register or other record relating to the weight and measure is not produced, then also, Section 31 is attracted.
14. In this particular case, it is stated in the complaint at Paragraph 5(a) that when the compounding notice was issued pertaining to Paragraph 4(a), the retailer did not compound the case. He has also not submitted the purchase invoice of the said products which constitute an offence under Section 31 of the Act. When there is no allegation with regard to the standard weight or standard units or quality of the articles inside the packages, the question of production of the 28 documents with reference to any weight or measure and any non-production of the documents will not attract Section 31 of the Act. Therefore, if there is any difference in weight and measure and allegation is made to that effect, in order to ascertain the weight and measure or if any document is required to be produced relating to weight and measure and if the same is not produced by the manufacturer or the retailer, then only Section 31 of the Act is attracted. Therefore, in my opinion, in the above said cases, neither Section 18(1) nor Section 36(1) or Section 31 of the Act are attracted.
15. However, as could be seen from the allegations made in the complaints, there were no declarations with reference to the manufacturer’s name and address as well as the date of manufacture/packed month and year, maximum retail price and customer care telephone number and declared size and standard unit. These declarations were not made on the pre-packed packages. 29 Therefore, it is only a mere non-making of the declarations on the pre-packages alleged which attracted violation of the Rules invoked by the complainant. Therefore, if any Rules are violated under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, then the violation of the said Rules are punishable under Rule 32 of the said Rules.
16. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, the Trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with the case in order to ascertain in all the above cases, whether any rules are violated and if they are punishable under Rule 32 of the said Rules and thereafter dispose of the cases in accordance with law. Accordingly, all the petitions are partly allowed. nv Sd/- JUDGE