Point of law: Cognizance of offence – set aside - there is an embargo on prosecuting the Director of the company for the violation of any of the provisions resulting in commission of offences.

ORDER :

1. In all these petitions common questions of law are involved and therefore with the consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the petitions are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioners in Criminal Petition No.101102/2020 are calling in question the order dated 22.06.2020 passed in C.C.No.1040/2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 31 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (“the Act” for short) against the petitioners.

3. Petitioners in Criminal Petition No.101397/2020 are calling in question the order dated 10.06.2020 passed in C.C.No.1020/2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak taking cognizance against them for the above mentioned of fences.

4. Petitioners in Criminal Petition No.101468/2020 are calling in question the order dated 12.06.2020 passed in C.C.No.1016/2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak taking cognizance against them for the above mentioned of fences.

5. Petitioners in Criminal Petition No.101477/2020 are calling in question the order dated 10.06.2020 passed in C.C.No.1018/2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak taking cognizance against them for the above mentioned of fences.

6. Brief facts are to the effect that the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Gokak Sub-Division, Gokak presented separate private complaints against the petitioners in these petitions before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak alleging violation of the provisions of the Act by them and requesting the Court to take cognizance for the offences mentioned in the private complaints.

7. Briefly put, the thrust of the complaint presented by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Gokak Sub- Division is that these petitioners through their companies produce/manufacture various consumer/engineering products and they have put out advertisements in various websites and on browsing the same in the internet, the Inspector, Legal Metrology who will be henceforth referred to as complainant discovered that they were in violation of various provisions of the Act and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. When the complaints were presented before the learned JMFC, he perused the same and since the complainant is a public servant, dispensing with the sworn statement, being of the opinion that the contents of the private complaints made out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 31 and 36 of the Act, took cognizance for the said offences and issued summons to the petitioners.

8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ravi B Naik, learned counsel Sri. Jawaharlal and learned counsel Sri. Raghavendra C.R., for the various petitioners herein. I have also heard learned HCGP for the respondent.

9. The contentions of the learned counsel for the various petitioners is that the orders impugned herein taking cognizance for the of fences punishable under Sections 31 and 36 of the Act have been passed in total violation of the procedure established under law and more particularly under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

10. Elaborating the said submission, it is contended that the learned Court below was having territorial jurisdiction for the Revenue Taluk of Gokak and all the petitioners herein are located/residing in places outside the said jurisdiction viz., Bangalore, Mumbai and various other states and therefore by following the procedure established under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. the issuance of process ought to have been postponed/deferred till after holding inquiry as provided therein. For the said purpose, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2013) 2 SCC 435.

11. They also submitted that the companies which are the petitioners herein and the rest of the petitioners who are directors of the same are not liable to be