2008 (10) TMI 348 - HC - Indian Laws

Printers - Weights and measures - whether the petitioners have committed offences under Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rule 23(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 punishable under Section 67 and Rule 39(1) of Package Rules? Held that - An electronic printer which is packed (may be for the purpose of insulation and protection from damage) in the absence of customer, after it is removed it undergoes perceptible modification, and therefore, it falls within the category of pre-packed commodity. Secondly, as admitted in the affidavit filed by second petitioner, first petitioner imports electronic printers, electronic parts and markets the printers and printer parts after assembling them in the facility of Tamil Nadu. It is certainly marketed in different parts of the country in course of inter-State trade or commerce and therefore, all provisions of the Act and Package Rules would apply. Merely because only one unit is packed in one package, the same does not take electronic printers out of the purview of the Act and the Rules. A glance at this provision and more particularly to Explanation I would suggest that the Refrigerator is covered under the term pre-packed commodity . Even if the package of the Refrigerator is required to be opened for testing, even then the Refrigerator would continue to be a pre-packed commodity . There are various types of packages defined under the Rules and ultimately Rule 3 specifically suggests that the provisions of Chapter II would apply to the packages intended for retail sale and the expression package would be construed accordingly. It is not disputed before us that the sale of the Refrigerator is covered under the retail sale . Once that position is clear Rule 6 would specifically include the Refrigerator and would carry along with it the requirements that Rule of printing certain information including the sale price on the package. Thus it is clear that by being sold by the manufacturer in a packaged form, the Refrigerator would be covered by the provisions of the Act and SWM (PC) Rules and it would be imperative that the MRP has to be printed in terms of Rule 6 which has been referred to above.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 to electronic printers.
2. Whether electronic printers can be considered "commodities in packaged form" or "pre-packed commodities" under the Act and Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Act and Rules in the Absence of Specific Notification:
The petitioners argued that the Act and Rules cannot be applied to electronic printers without a specific notification under Section 1(3)(d) of the Act. The court examined Section 1(3) of the Act, which allows the Central Government to bring the Act into force on different dates for different provisions, areas, classes of undertakings, goods, weights and measures, or users of weights and measures. The court noted that the Government of India had issued notifications on 26-9-1977, 1-4-1980, and 1-7-1987, bringing various provisions of the Act into force. The court concluded that these notifications covered all aspects under Section 1(3) and that no further notification was necessary. The court referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in Subash Arjandas Kataria v. State of Maharashtra, which supported this interpretation. Thus, the petitioners' argument was rejected.

2. Whether Electronic Printers are "Commodities in Packaged Form" or "Pre-packed Commodities":
The court examined whether electronic printers fall under the definitions of "commodity in packaged form" and "pre-packed commodity" as per the Act and Rules. Section 2(b) of the Act defines "commodity in packaged form" broadly, including any valuable thing offered for sale. Section 39 of the Act requires commodities in packaged form sold in inter-State trade to bear specific labels. The court noted that the petitioners' business involved importing, assembling, and distributing electronic printers across states, which constitutes inter-State trade.

The court referred to Rule 2(l) of the Package Rules, defining "pre-packed commodity" as a commodity placed in a package without the purchaser being present, with a predetermined value that cannot be altered without opening the package. The court found that electronic printers, sold in insulated packages to protect from damage and requiring software installation before use, fit this definition. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool of India Ltd v. Union of India, which held that refrigerators sold in packaged form are "pre-packed commodities" under the Act and Rules.

The court also referenced decisions from the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Madras, and Bombay, which applied the test of whether a commodity requires packaging for sale and undergoes a change when unpacked. The court concluded that electronic printers, being sold in packages and requiring software installation, meet the criteria of "pre-packed commodities."

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Act and Package Rules apply to electronic printers. The petitioners are required to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules, including labeling requirements. The court did not award costs in the case.