2015 (12) TMI 1244 - HC - Indian Laws

Commission of an offence u/s 33/51 & 39/63 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977 - Notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C. ) issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate challenged - whether there has not been any unjust enrichment to the company or any loss to the prospective customer and there is complete absence of any malafide intention? Held that - The reply to the show cause notice dated 11.10.2010 by the petitioner company makes it very clear that the wrapper with the same MRP of ₹ 320/- was ordered in bulk which remained unused. A revised price is required to be printed before packing the contents. It was in this context and under such circumstances that the initial label which fortunately and incidentally contained the same MRP pwas blacked out and a separate MRP of ₹ 320/- was printed. This fact stands buttressed by the invoices sent to the retailers throughout the country which was made part of the show cause notice. That apart, it is not the case of the respondent that the label was blacked out and printed separately by changing the MRP and after the packing of the contents. Thus the clarification vide notification No.SSR57B(E) dated 26.8.1993 referred to above namely that there is no bar on the manufacturer to blank out the earlier declarations and reprint the revised declarations, before packaging is not in derogation of or inconsistent with sub Clause (7) of Rule 23. Thus it cannot be assumed that the petitioner company packaged the content namely the tube and thereafter reprinted the label of price on the wrapper. Thus no offence under any one of the sections of the Act of 1985 can at all be said to have been made out. Be it noted that the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 has been repealed with effect from 01.03.2011 vide Section 57 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. However, since the alleged offence is said to have been committed prior to the repeal, the provisions of the 1985 Act would apply. On the above premised reason, this Court considers the charges against the company to be absolutely groundless and, therefore, the complaint (Complaint No. 600/11/WM) and the notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Metropolitan Magistrate are hereby quashed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Alleged violation of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, and Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977.
3. Interpretation of Rule 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.
4. Applicability of Section 95 of the IPC.
5. Procedural validity of the complaint filed by the Inspector Legal, Metrology.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner, a company registered in India, challenged the notice issued under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The notice alleged that during an inspection on 18.08.2010, a packet of tube packed by the petitioner was found with a mutilated MRP, thereby committing an offense under Sections 33/51 and 39/63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, and Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977.

2. Alleged violation of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, and Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977:
The inspection report indicated that the MRP on the packet was mutilated and rewritten as Rs. 320. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging a breach of Sections 33/39 of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977/Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. The petitioner replied, stating that the MRP of Rs. 320 was correct and provided supporting documents, including price lists and invoices.

3. Interpretation of Rule 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977:
The petitioner argued that the alteration of MRP on the packaging was done before dispatching the products from the factory, which is permissible under the rules. The guidelines and notifications clarified that manufacturers can blank out earlier declarations and reprint revised declarations before packaging. The court noted that Rule 23(7) prohibits altering the price on the wrapper once printed and used for packing but does not bar alterations before packing the contents.

4. Applicability of Section 95 of the IPC:
The petitioner contended that the alleged offense caused no harm or loss to customers, invoking Section 95 of the IPC, which states that minor harm not likely to be complained about by a person of ordinary sense and temper is not an offense. The court found no evidence of unjust enrichment or loss to customers, supporting the petitioner's argument.

5. Procedural validity of the complaint filed by the Inspector Legal, Metrology:
The petitioner raised concerns about the procedural validity of the complaint, noting that it lacked a date and seal. The court observed that a similar complaint against the petitioner was dismissed earlier. The court also referred to the guidelines and notifications clarifying permissible alterations in packaging, supporting the petitioner's actions.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the charges against the petitioner were groundless. The complaint and the notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. were quashed. The petition was allowed, and the related application was dismissed as infructuous.