Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, learned SPP appears on advance notice for respondent.

2. Heard Smt. Sumathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Surya Prakash, appearing for petitioners and learned SPP appearing for respondent. Perused the records.

3. Petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.984/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, Tumkur District for having initiated proceedings against them for the offence punishable under Section 36 read with Rule 4, 6(1)(c) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2011”,) and Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).

4. Petitioner No.1 is manufacturers of shirts and are being sold by packaging the said shirts in transparent polythene cover. Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are the directors of Petitioner No.1-company of Respondent-authority visited M/s. Oswal Textorium, Distributor, B.H. Road, Tiptur, on 04.03.2017 and seized five pre-packaged packages of cotton shirts on which the year and month of manufacturing were not declared on the pack and as such a notice under Section 48 of the Act, for compounding the said offence was issued to petitioners alleging that said violations constitute an offence under Section 18 of the Act, read with Rule 6(1) of Rules, 2011, and same being punishable under Section 36 of the Act and said offence being compoundable under Section 48 of the Act, option was given to petitioners to compound the offence vide notice dated 04.03.2017 vide Annexure-D. Likewise, first petitioner was also issued with notice, whose premises was also inspected by respondent-authority. After having taken time to reply to the said show cause notice by communication dated 30.03.2017 vide Annexure-J, reply was issued on 06.05.2017 vide Annexure-L contending that they did not pack the garments to be sent to third parties and only when third parties approaches them for purchasing shirts or commodities, same would be put in a plastic cover for safety and it is not a packaged commodity. Hence, they contended that there is neither an offence made out against petitioners nor they are required to compound the offences. Hence, they sought for withdrawal of show cause notice. It is thereafter, respondent-authority has issued one more clarification-cum-final notice dated 24.05.2017 calling upon the petitioners to get the offences compounded. Respondent thereafter has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur against petitioners and five (5) others, who has ordered for registering the complaint and issued notice to accused persons. Hence, petitioners are before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.

5. It is the contention of Smt. Sumathi learned counsel appearing for petitioners that Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division by communication dated 16.12.2016 has clarified that garments sold in loose form in retail stores would not attract the provisions of Rules, 2011, and as such, continuation of proceedings against petitioners for having sold shirts in loose form would not be an offence and as such, question of either getting the offences compounded or undergoing the ordeal of trial does not arise. Hence, she prays for quashing of the proceedings.

6. She has also brought to the notice of this Court the communication dated 15.05.2017 issued by President of The Clothing Manufacturers Association of India, whereunder there is a reference to Trade Advisories dated 16.12.2016 issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division, vide Annexure-B, to contend that loose garments sold even by a retail stores would not attract the provision of Rules, 2011. Hence, she prays for quashing of proceedings.

7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners has also relied upon the ju