2009 (4) TMI 820 - HC - Indian Laws

Offence under Sec. 39(5) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rule 5 Schedule III Clause No. 17 (c) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities ) Rules, 1977 Held that -Tthere is absolutely no merit or substance in the contentions raised by the respondents holding that the package in question is not a multi-piece package and that Rule 17 is not attracted to the case in hand. The challenge raised by the petitioner against the impugned proceedings taken by the respondents 1 and 2 is very much justified. The impugned orders/proceedings Ext. P2, P6 & P7 are set aside. It is declared that the multi-piece package defined under Rule 2(j) of the Rules, on satisfying the requirement under Rule 17 of the Rules, does not attract the stipulation under Clause 17(c) of the 3rd Schedule mentioned under Rule 5 of the Rules but for the individual units contained in the multi-piece package , which of course shall be of standard weight. W.P. allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of prosecution under Section 39(5) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and Rule 5 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.
2. Definition and applicability of "multi-piece package" under Rule 2(j) of the Rules.
3. Compliance with Rule 17 of the Rules regarding additional declarations on multi-piece packages.
4. Interpretation of Clause 17(c) of the 3rd Schedule under Rule 5 of the Rules concerning standard weights for packaged commodities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Prosecution under Section 39(5) and Rule 5:
The petitioner challenged the prosecution steps initiated by the respondents under Section 39(5) of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules. The petitioner argued that their marketing scheme, which involved selling a "multi-piece package" of three 75 gm soaps with a total net weight of 225 gm, complied with the relevant provisions. The respondents contended that the package was non-standard as per Clause 17(c) of the 3rd Schedule, which specifies standard weights for toilet soaps.

2. Definition and Applicability of "Multi-piece Package":
The court examined the definition of "multi-piece package" under Rule 2(j) of the Rules, which states that it is a package containing two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces of the same commodity intended for retail sale, either as individual pieces or as a whole. The petitioner argued that their package met this definition. The court agreed, noting that the definition does not require both individual and whole package sales simultaneously. The court found the respondents' interpretation-that the individual units must be suitable for separate sale-incorrect and unsustainable.

3. Compliance with Rule 17:
Rule 17 requires additional declarations on multi-piece packages, including the number of individual pieces and the retail sale price of the package. The petitioner had made these declarations on the package, stating it contained three 75 gm soaps and was sold for Rs. 50. The court noted that the proviso to Rule 17(1) requires declarations on individual pieces only if they are intended for separate sale. Since the petitioner's package was not intended for separate sale, the court held that the petitioner complied with Rule 17 by declaring that the individual units were not for retail sale.

4. Interpretation of Clause 17(c) of the 3rd Schedule:
The respondents argued that the package's net weight of 225 gm violated the standard weights specified in Clause 17(c) of the 3rd Schedule. The court clarified that the standard weights under Clause 17(c) apply to individual units, not to the total weight of a multi-piece package. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 39(5) and the Rules is to enable consumers to make comparative assessments without being misled. Since the petitioner's package clearly indicated the number of units, their individual weights, and the total price, the court found no violation of the Act or the Rules.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner's "multi-piece package" complied with the relevant legal provisions. The impugned proceedings (Ext. P2, P6, and P7) were set aside, and it was declared that the multi-piece package, upon satisfying Rule 17, does not attract the stipulation under Clause 17(c) of the 3rd Schedule for individual units. The writ petition was allowed, and the prosecution steps against the petitioner were quashed.

← Previous Next →