Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Aravind Kumar, J.
Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (I) Private Limited - Appellant
Vs.
State - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5159 of 2013, 2408 of 2013, 7220 of 2012, 1948 of 2013, 4747 of 2014, 4004 of 2012, 1062 of 2016, 1969 of 2018
Decided On : 29-08-2019
R. Jawaharlal, Adv., T.S. Satish, Adv., S. Rachaiah, Adv.
The judgment established the importance of compliance with declaration requirements, the interpretation of wholesale packages, and the limitations of vicarious liability under Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act.
Headnote:
Legal Metrology Act - Violation of Packaged Commodities Rules - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitions were filed for quashing of proceedings initiated for alleged violation of the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Packaged Commodities Rules. The complaints alleged that pre-packaged commodities seized did not have the required declarations as per the Act and Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the complaints did not establish a case against the petitioners. It also noted procedural irregularities in the summoning orders issued by the Magistrates.
Issues: The issues included the compliance with declaration requirements, the classification of products as pre-packaged commodities, and the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 49 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act and Packaged Commodities Rules to determine the requirements for declarations on pre-packaged commodities, the classification of wholesale packages, and the applicability of vicarious liability.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners. It also ordered the delinking and listing of certain matters after the disposal of related cases pending before the Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT :
Aravind Kumar, J.
These petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners for quashing of the proceedings pending before the respective Metropolitan Magistrate Courts as also orders summoning them, which proceedings have been initiated for alleged violation of the provisions of Legal Metrology Act,2009 (for short 'the Metrology Act') read with The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules,2011, (for short ' Packaged Commodities Rules).
2. For the purposes of convenience and immediate reference, the details of cases initiated against respective petitioners and the offences alleged against them are tabulated hereinbelow:
| Name of the Petitioner | Crl.P.No. | Allegation in the complaint | Offence alleged |
| Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (I) (Pvt) (Ltd.) | 5159/2013 arising out of (CC No.811/2012) | Name of the product len's care solution not printed | Violation of Rule 4 and 6 (1) (b) of Packaged Commodities Rules read with Section 18 (1) of Metrology Act. |
| VST Industries Limited | Crl.P.No.2408/2013 arising out of (CC No.811/2012) | Net quantity is not marked namely "N" or "U". | Violation of Rule 13 (5) of Rules and Section 18 (1) of the Act. |
| Vijaykumar | Crl.P.No.7220/2012 arising out of (CC 811/2012) | Net quantity not marked on the package | Violation of Rule 13 (5) of Rules and Section 18 (1) of the Act. |
| Rayban Son Optics India Limited | Crl.P.No.1948/2013 arising out of (CC No.811/2012) | Net quantity not marked on the package | Violation of Rule 13 (5) of Rules and Section 18 (1) of the Act. |
| Unity Logistics | Crl.P.4747/2014 arising out of (CC No.466/2014) | 23 retail packages of Britannia Biscuits kept in the jar which is alleged not containing the declaration on the jar | Violation of Rule 24 of the Rules and Section 18 (1) and Section 49 (1) of the Act. |
| Britannia Industries Limited | Crl.P.No.4004/2012 arising out of (CC No.374/2012) | Retailed packages of Britannia tiger Biscuits wrapped in Shrink Wrap (Transportation Package) kept in carton did not contain the declaration namely the transportation package. | Violation of Rule 24 of the Rules and Section 18 (1) and 49 (1) of the Act. |
| Donty Agencies and four others | Crl.P.No.1062/2016 arising out of (C.C.No.1893/2015) | Retailed packages of Moov Ayurvedic Drug wrapped in Shrink Wrap for transportation (Transportation package) kept in Carton were said not containing the declaration namely Shrink Wrap was considered as wholesale package. | Violation of Rule 6 (5),18 and 24 of the rules read with Sections 18 and 49 of the Act. |
| Rakesh Kapoor | Crl.P.No.1969/2018 arising out of (CC No.1893/2015) | Retailed packages of Moov Ayurvedic Drug wrapped in Shrink Wrap for transportation (Transportation package) kept in Carton were said not containing the declaration namely Shrink Wrap was considered as wholesale package. | Violation of Rule 6 (5),18 and 24 of the rules read with Sections 18 and 49 of the Act. |
3. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in the above petitions, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
4. Complaints in question came to be filed by Inspector/Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology against the accused persons alleging that on 17.05.2012/ 07.11.2013/ 17.09.2011/ 05.03.2015, the premises of the respective accused came to be inspected and pre-packed packages as more fully indicated in the respective complaints were seized on finding that declaration as required under the Act and the Rules have not been affixed on the label of the said commodities and thereby petitioners are to be prosecuted and punished for violating the Packaged Commodity Rules.
5. Insofar as Crl.P.Nos.5159/2013,2408/2013,7220/2012 and 1948/2013, it was allege
