The central legal point established in the judgment is that under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, the nomination of a person responsible under Section 49(2) is crucial in determining the liability of company directors for offences committed by the company.

1. Though these petitions are listed today for admission, having regard to the short point of law involved in these matters, with consent of both sides, matters were heard for final disposal.

2. As the parties to these petitions are common and common questions of fact and law arises for consideration, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The common petitioners 1 to 5 in all these petitions have been arrayed as accused 2 to 6 in C.C.Nos.667/13, 670/13, 660/2013, 668/13, 661/2013, 662/13, 663/13, 669/13, 671/13, 664/13, 665/13, 672/13, 666/13 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District. In addition to this, petitioners 1 to 4 have also been arrayed as accused 8 to 11 in C.C.No.660/13.

4. The inspector of Legal Metrology, Mangalore, Sub-Division, initiated prosecution in the aforesaid cases against these petitioners and others for the violation of various provisions of The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short the Act) and the rules framed therein, which are punishable under Section 36 (1) of the Act. These petitioners have been arrayed as accused in the capacity as Directors and Store Manager of M/s Max Hyper Market India Pvt. Ltd. Accused No.1 arrayed in the case is the Managing Director of the said company. Quashing of the prosecution in the aforesaid cases have been sought by these petitioners on the legal ground that though accused No.1 as Managing Director of the Company, has been nominated under Section 49(2) of the Act, as a person responsible and such nomination has been intimated to the department well before the alleged date of offence, the prosecution have been launched against the petitioners, though under the Act they are not liable to be prosecuted for any of the offences.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both the sides.

6. There is no dispute that these petitioners have been sought to be prosecuted as the Directors of the Company, which is the principal offender.

7. Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 reads as under:-

"Offences by companies and power of court to publish name, place of business, etc., for companies convicted.

(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company:-

(a) (i) The person, if any, who has been nominate under Sub-Section(2) to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company (hereinafter in this section referred to as a person responsible); or

(ii) Where no person has been nominated, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company; and

(b) The company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:-

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

(2) Any company may, by order in writing, authorize any of its directors to exercise all such powers and take all such steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission by the company of any offence under this Act and may give notice to the Director or the concerned Controller or any legal metrology officer authorized in this behalf by such Controller (hereinafter in this section referred to as the authorised officer) in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, that it has nominated such director as the person responsible, along with the written consent of such director for being so nominated.

Explanation-Where a company has different establishments or branches or different units in any establishment or branch, different persons may be nominated under this sub-section in relation to different establishments or branches or units and the person nominated in