The Kerala High Court has quashed complaint against “FROOTI” for alleged violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The single judge bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while adjudicating upon a Criminal Miscellaneous Case referred to the prosecution against the petitioners to be an abuse of the process of law.
Brief Facts of the Case
The respondent upon purchasing a plastic bottled fruit-based beverage called ‘FROOTI’ issued a notice to the manufacturer alleging that the product manufactured by them violated the provisions of rule 8(2) as well as rule 31(2) of the Rules. The reason alleged was that as a bottle not intended to be refilled, the product purchased by him did not contain the retail sale price printed on the ‘principal display panel’ and also that the font size of the declaration of MRP was not the same as that of the net quantity declaration and hence punishable under section 36(1) of the Act. Upon disagreeing with the reply notice, he filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate.
The petitioners who are the manufacturer and the Directors of the fruit-based beverage popularly known as ‘FROOTI’ have been arrayed as accused. They are facing prosecution for alleged violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Thus they have invoked the jurisdiction of the court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of court as it is instituted with malafides without any basis. It was argued that despite the existence of a nominee under section 49 of the Act, petitioners have been arrayed as accused contrary to the statute. The counsel contended that from the very complaint itself, it is evident that the product seized and produced before the court cannot evidence the commission of any offence under the Act and the Rules, since the contents of the seized package were wholly removed. It was further contended that the allegations of the information of retail sale price not being printed on the label was baseless and that the numerals declaring the MRP and packing date were of sufficient size.
The learned Public Prosecutor contended that as per Rule 6, every package has to “bear thereon or on the label”, the details regarding MRP and requisite information as contemplated under the Rules and the Act and in the instant case, there was no compliance of the Rules. It was also argued that the petitioners cannot take the cover of section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 since the name of the nominee was never informed to the first respondent despite two show cause notices. The counsel further contended that the scope of interference under section 482 Cr.P.C is very limited and that the case can only be decided on merits, that too after a trial.
High Court’s Observation
Upon looking at the allegations raised, the Court opined that the question that requires an answer was whether the online information when grouped together and printed on the neck of the bottle of violated the provisions of rule 8(2). According to the first respondent, the retail sale price can be printed on the bottle, only if the product is a soft drink or ready-to-serve. Upon examination of the rules the court was of the view that the interpretation canvassed on behalf of the first respondent is not contemplated either by the Rules or by the Act.
The court observed:
"While Rule 8(1) directzthat the total surface area of the package as the place where the information can be given in the manner specified, Rule 8(2) stipulates that for soft drinks and ready-to serve fruit beverages or the like, to indicate the retail sale price either on the crown cap or on the bottle or on both, if the bottle is one which can be refilled. There is nothing in Rule 8(2) which indicates the clause to be restrictive in character. In this context, referring to the definition of “label” the court observed that even the print of MRP and other online information on the bottle will, by the definition itself, become a label."
The court further observed that the first respondent has no case in his complaint that the retail price has not been affixed on the bottle ,pointing to the definition of the word label in section 2(f) of the Act, viewed in light of which it can be understood that every package is required to have the print of the MRP either on the package or on the label securely affixed. In such circumstances, the mere affixing of the retail price and the other online information grouped together and printed on the neck of the bottle satisfy the requirements under the Rules then in force, and there is no violation of rule 8(2).
The court found the second violation alleged regarding the font size of the numerals of MRP to be baseless referring to Rule 7, which provides the minimum height of the numerals where it is indicated that it must be 4mm in normal cases and 6mm when the numerals are blown, formed, molded on the container. Since the product did not have any blown or molded numerals, their height needed to be only 4mm and not 6mm. Thus in view of the facts, the Court quashed all proceedings against the petitioners.
CASE TITLE: M/S.PARLE AGRO PVT.LTD. vs STATE OF KERALA
CASE DETAILS: CRL.MC NO. 3354 OF 2015
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
CITATION: CRL.MC NO. 3354 OF 2015
Advocates for Petitioner: SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI.NELSON JOSEPH
Advocates for Respondent: SRI.NOUSHAD K.A, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
0 Comments