Gtc Industrial Ltd. Vs. E.V.P. Abdurahimankutty - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - annexure-ii is the petition for condonation filed on the same day which was seen allowed only on 30-1-1992. but, then, cognizance had not been taken twice as submitted, but only once and that was on 7-1-1992. 5. to condone the delay or not is in the discretion of the court, if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that delay has been properly explained, it could take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of the period for limitation prescribed under section 468, cr. it would appear that even without an application, if the court is satisfied that delay has to be condoned, to meet the ends of justice, it would be well within its power to do so. there is an interesting article on this in the english language section of the 'frontline',vol.orderb.m. thulasidas, j.1. the accused in s. t. no. 103 of 1992 of the judicial first class magistrate court, malappuram, is the petitioner. the revision is directed against the order of the magistrate dated 30-1-1992 on crl. m. p. 509 of 1992. the m. c. is filed under section 482, cr. p.c. to quash the proceedings in the above case. these were heard together.2. in the complaint filed by the respondent, it is alleged that he inspected the trade premises of one hamza, near civil station, malappuram, on 22-4-1991 and found him to have 'displayed for retail sale packets containing chancellor cigarettes.' they did not bear proper delcarations as required under rule 17(1)(a) and (b) of the standards of weights and measures (packages commodities) rules. they were manufactured by the petitioner.....

Judgment:
ORDER

B.M. Thulasidas, J.

1. The accused in S. T. No. 103 of 1992 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, is the petitioner. The revision is directed against the order of the Magistrate dated 30-1-1992 on Crl. M. P. 509 of 1992. The M. C. is filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above case. These were heard together.

2. In the complaint filed by the respondent, it is alleged that he inspected the trade premises of one Hamza, near Civil Station, Malappuram, on 22-4-1991 and found him to have 'displayed for retail sale packets containing Chancellor Cigarettes.' They did not bear proper delcarations as required under Rule 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packages Commodities) Rules. They were manufactured by the petitioner who had violated Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures and Rule 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules and was liable for punishment under Section 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rule 39 of the said Rules. Along with the complaint, ten documents were also produced.

3. The complaint was filed on 7-1-1992 after a delay of 77 days to condone which a petition was filed on 8-1-1992. The delay was condoned on 30-1-1992. According to the petitioner, since congizance was taken on 7-1-1992, and the case was numbered, the Magistrate had no power to take cognizance again on 30-1-1992 after condoning the delay. The order had been passed without jurisdiction. It was further stated that the delay which was not explained had been condoned without hearing the petitioner.

4. I do not think there is any merit in the petitioner's contention. There was allegedly a delay of 77 days when the complaint was filed. Annexure-II is the petition for condonation filed on the same day which was seen allowed only on 30-1-1992. But, then, cognizance had not been taken twice as submitted, but only once and that was on 7-1-1992.

5. To condone the delay or not is in the discretion of the court, if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that delay has been properly explained, it could take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of the period for limitation prescribed under Section 468, Cr. P.C. Even if the delay has not been explained, the Court would be justified to take cognizance of the complaint after the period of limitation, if it finds necessary so to do, in the interest of justice. It would appear that even without an application, if the court is satisfied that delay has to be condoned, to meet the ends of justice, it would be well within its power to do so. I do not think any illegality was committed by the Magistrate. He has exercised his discretion properly. Interference with the order seems to be uncalled for. Crl. R. P. Therefore, fails and is dismissed.

6. As stated already, the petitioner was alleged to have violated Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 and Rule 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 which are punishable under Rule 39 of the said rules and Section 63 of the aforesaid Act. Briefly, the defence of the petitioner is that no offence has been committed. Under Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 :

No person shall ---

(a) make, manufacture, pack, sell or cause to be packed or sold; or

(b) distribute, deliver, or cause to be distributed or delivered; or

(c) offer, expose or possess for sale,

any commodity in packaged form to which this part applies unless such package bears thereon or on label securely attached thereto a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration, made in the prescribed manner, of--

(i) the identity of the commodity in the package;

(ii) the net quantity, -in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity in the package;

(iii) where the commodity is packaged or sold by number, the accurate number of the commodity contained in the package; and

(iv) the unit sale price of the commodity in the package; and

(v) the sale price of the package.

(The other provisions are not very relevant for the purpose of this case.)

Under Section 2(b) of the Act 'commodity in package form' means commodity packaged, whether in any bottle, tin, wrapper or otherwise, in units suitable for sale, whether wholesale or retail.' What was purchased by the respondent was a carton of chancellor cirgarettes which is a commodity in packaged form.

7. The point that arises for decision is whether the carton should contain the declarations under Rule 17(1)(a) and (b) or whether it was enough if such declaration found a place on the invidividual packets.

8. The declarations under Sub-rules (a) and (b) of Rule 17, have to find a place on multi-piece package which is defined as 'a package containing two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces of the same commodities of identifical quantity, intended for retail sale, eitehr in individual pieces of the package as a whole'. According to counsel, each packet in a carton is a multi piece package, that contained the required declaration which need not find a place on the carton.

9. The prefix 'multi' more than one, many. This prefix has many functions and is being liberally employed in various contexts. There is an interesting article on this in the English language section of the 'Frontline', Vol. 9, No. 6 of March 1992.

10. In my view, the contention raised by the counsel cannot be accepted on the definition of the words 'multi piece package'. Where a package contains two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces of the same commodities of identical quantity meant for retail sale either in individual pieces or the package as a whole will be a multi-piece package. The unit in a multi-piece package is the individual packet. A small pack or a small package is packet. Individual packets as also the multi-piece package could be sold retail. A packet that contained labelled pieces of the same commodity of identical quantity would not be a multi-piece package, which by definition should contain two or more packets. The Illustration to Rule 2(j) seems to be in point.

11. In this case, what was purchased was a multi-piece package that contained 10 labelled and packaged pieces. The multi-piece package, which in this case was the carton, ought to carry the declarations as required by Rule 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules. The contention to the contrary does not appear to be tenable.

12. In my view, prima facie, the offence as alleged against the petitioner has been made out. It is not possible to agree that Annexure-I complaint is unsustainable and is an abuse of the process of the Court. I am not inclined to interfere.

13. Without prejudice to the petitioner's right to canvass the contentions before the court below, the Crl. M. C. is dismissed.