In all the above cases, the respondent-Inspector of Legal Metrology, Mangalore Sub-Division, Mangalore has submitted private complaints alleging offences against the petitioners under Sections 18(1), 31, 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for brevity) and also for violation of Rules 11(1)(e), 18, 6(1)(a),(d),(e),(f) and 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’, for brevity). In some cases, it is alleged that Rule 4, 6(1)(d) is violated and in some other cases Rules 6(1)(a),(d),(e) are violated.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein strenuously contends that, though the Rules invoked by the respondent by way of the above said criminal complaints attracted violation of Rules 6(1)(d), 4 and 6(3) in some cases, but section 18(1) of the Act or 36(1) of the Act are not at all attracted. Even in Criminal Petition No.8106/2013, though Rule 6(1)(a) to (d) is attracted, but again, Sections 18, 31 and 36(1) of the Act are not at all attracted.

3. The petitioners have conceded that, there is no declaration with respect to some of the information which ought to have been made on the pre-packed packages and violation of such Rules are only punishable under Rule 32. Hence, he pleaded for quashing the proceedings for the offence under Sections 18(1), 36(1) and Section 31 of the Act.

4. Before adverting to the above said provisions, it is just and necessary to have brief factual aspects of the above said cases.

5. The complainant (respondent herein), the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Mangalore has in fact, visited the petitioners’ retail shops on 21.11.2012 at 4p.m. and on 27.7.2012, found illegalities. It was observed by him that, they found some pre-packed packages and on the said pre-packed packages, they found missing of the manufacturer’s address, date of manufacture/packed month and year, maximum retail price, customer care telephone number and size declared or standard declared. Further, it is alleged in the complaints that, the respondent asked the petitioners to produce the invoice relating to the said products, which are pre-packed packages, but they have not produced any such documents and therefore, alleging that it constitute an offence under Section 31 of the Act along with other offences, lodged a complaint. For the purpose of easy understanding, and avoiding confusion, a chart is prepared in order to show in which case, the respondent has invoked which of the provisions of the offences alleged:-

Sl. No.	Case No.	Allegation Alleged	Page No. Para No.	Offences Alleged
1	Crl. P 5357/2013	Month and year of manufacture/packaging not declared on the packaging.	Pg 13 Para 6	S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(1)(d), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act.
2	Crl. P 5358/2013	Month and year of manufacturing/pack aging not declared on additional sticker.	Pg 11 Para 3	S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(3), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act.
3	Crl. P 5359/2013	MRP and name of manufacturer declared on additional sticker and the customer care number not declared on the packaging.	Pg. 11 Para 3	S. 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act (‘Act’) Read with Rule 4, 6(2), 18(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules (‘Rule’) which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act.
4	Crl. P 5360/2013	MRP declared on additional sticker.	Pg 9 Para 6	S. 18(1) of the Act Read with Rule 4, 6(3), 18(1) of the Rules which are allegedly punishable under S. 36(1) of the Act.
5	Crl. P 5393/2013