In CRL.MC NO. 3354 OF 2015-KER HC- Merely because product was perishable, it was not open for Inspector to remove commodity from bottle without complying with provisions of Legal Metrology Act & Rules, says Kerala HC while quashing proceedings against PARLE
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas [20-12-2022]

Read Order: M/S. PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. AN ORS Vs. SENIOR INSPECTOR AND ORS 

LE Correspondent

Ernakulam, December 27, 2022: Noting that every package is required to have print of MRP either on package or on label securely affixed, the Kerala High Court has come to the aid of Parle Argo-manufacturer of the fruit-based beverage ‘FROOTI’ by quashing the prosecution case against them for alleged violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009  and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 . 

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the criminal miscellaneous case by observing that the prosecution against the petitioners was  an abuse of the process of law and was liable to be interfered with.

 The manufacturer and the Directors of the fruit-based beverage popularly known as ‘FROOTI’ were  facing prosecution for alleged violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009  and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short ‘the Rules’). Petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology. 

On March 3, 2014, the first respondent purchased a 1.5- litre pre-packed plastic bottled fruit-based beverage called ‘FROOTI’. On the next day, he 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 Legal Metrology Act, 2009  

 Immediately, a reply notice was issued on behalf of the petitioners to the first respondent, contending that the product satisfied the requirements of the Act and the Rules, and hence there was no violation. However, disregarding the reply notice, the first respondent filed a complaint   before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging violation of Rules 4, 6, 7(2), 9(1)(b), 9(3) read with rule 8(2) and 18 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011  apart from section 18 and section 36(1) of the Act.

After considering the submissions, the Court noted Section 18 of the Act stipulates that every pre-packaged commodity must bear thereon such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed. The Rules have prescribed the manner in which the declarations and particulars are to be provided. 

As per the Bench. the declaration of MRP and the date of manufacture are online information. It is printed using a printer. The pre-printed information includes details of the manufacturer, the net contents, the ingredients etc. The question that requires an answer is whether the online information when grouped together and printed on the neck of the bottle of ‘FROOTI’ violated the provisions of rule 8(2). The first respondent insisted that the retail sale price (which forms the online information) can be printed on the bottle, only if the product is a soft drink or ready-to-serve fruit beverage and the bottle is returnable by the consumer for being refilled.

It  is appropriate to refer to the definition of the word 'label' as appearing in section 2(f) of the Act. As per the said definition, 'label' includes any written marked, stamped, printed or graphic matter affixed to or appearing upon any pre-packaged commodity. Therefore, even the print of MRP and other online information on the bottle will, by the definition itself, become a label. 

Viewed in the light of the definition, 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. The first respondent has no case in his complaint that the retail price has not been affixed on the bottle. 

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) as made out from the complaint, the Court stated. 

Merely because the product or the commodity was perishable, it was not open for the Inspector to remove the commodity from the bottle without complying with the provisions of the Act or the Rules, as that will prejudice the accused during the prosecution, the Bench held.

“It is for this purpose that the Act read with the Rules stipulate that if the commodity is perishable, the provisions of section 451 Cr.P.C. is required to be followed. There is no mandate or stipulation that enables the Inspector to remove the commodity from the bottle, rendering the accused to prejudice. The proceedings are liable to be quashed for this reason also”.

Even though the Counsel for the petitioner had argued on the issue relating to non-prosecution of the nominee and illegal, prosecution of the Managing Director and other Directors of the company contrary to section 49 of the Act, the Court was of the view that since the entire complaint itself is required to be quashed, the question of non-prosecution of the nominee becomes only academic in nature. 

In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution against the petitioners was an abuse of the process of law and was liable to be interfered with. The Criminal Miscellaneous case was accordingly allowed.