A criminal complaint against an Officer of the Company without arraying the Company as an accused is not maintainable in law. Compliance with Rule 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 is determined based on the interpretation of the rule and relevant circulars.

The petitioners in these two writ petitions called in question the cognizance taken by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Bhadravathi in CC.No.644/2013 and requested this Court to quash the proceedings.

2. As per the contentions of the petitioners in WP.Nos.10539-10541/2014, petitioner No.1 is the Chairman and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the Executive Directors of ITC Limited, a Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 2013 having its registered Office at No.37, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkotta. Petitioners in WP.Nos.10537-38/2014 are the Managing Director and Director respectively of the said Company. The said Company is engaged in various businesses inter alia manufacture and marketing of biscuits. One of the brands under which ITC Limited markets its biscuits is “Sunfeast”. This matter is with reference to a particular product called “Dark Fantasy-Choco Fills” which is a chocolate filled biscuit. Each chocolate filled biscuit is sealed separately in a small packet to prevent loss of moisture and taste. The packets containing these individual chocolate filled biscuits are not intended for sale as retail packages. Five or ten such individual packages are thereafter placed in a carton box. The carton box in which the individual packages are packed is alone intended for retail sale. All the declarations required to be made in terms of Rule 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 (‘Rules’ for short) are made on those carton boxes. In order to bring out the fact that the individual packages containing individual biscuits are not intended for retail sale separately and it is clearly printed on the inner packet containing the individual biscuits that “Not to be sold individually without the outer pack. For declarations please check the outer pack”. The sample of the individual chocolate filled packet and the outer carton box containing the said packets are marked as Annexures-A and B respectively.

3. It is further case of the petitioners that respondent No.1-Inspector of Legal Metrology, conducted the inspection of a retail store by name ‘National Corner’ in Bhadravathi on 10.11.2012 at 3.00 p.m. and seized several products along with which one was the ‘Sunfeast Dark Fantasy - Choco Fills’ and he issued a notice dated 10.11.2012 to M/s. ITC Limited, asking them to furnish list of Directors, copies of the nomination documents, the Registration Certificate of the packers and manufacturers and other details. ITC limited came to know about the seizure from the said notice dated 10.11.2012 which was received on 21.11.2012 by the said Company. The Company responded and asked for the opportunity of personal hearing. But as they did not receive any response from the respondents and no opportunity was also given to explain to the notice and subsequently the petitioners received the summons from the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi to appear before the Court and after coming to know that a criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners and a complaint has been lodged against the petitioners in the Court, the Court has taken cognizance. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court in these petitions.

4. I have heard Sri K. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.R. Dodawad appearing on behalf of Sri C. Shashikantha, learned ASG for respondent No.2 and Sri I.S. Pramod Chandra, learned SPP-II for respondent No.1.

5. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the complaint are as against the Company, a criminal complaint against an Officer of the Company without arraying the Company as an accused is not maintainable in law. In order to substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the decision of this Court in WP.No.13060/2013 disposed of on 30.8.2016. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anitha Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limi