Point of Law: Allegations do not satisfy requirement of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18, hence question of raising same as a defense would not at all arise.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(i) Call for records in C.C. No. 7641/2018 pending before the Ld. XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru.

(ii) Quash the order taking cognizance dated 22.03.2018 (Annexure-A) in C.C. No. 7641/2018, passed by the Ld. XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru and further proceedings thereto.

(iii) Quash the Complaint dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure-B) registered as PCR No. 2208/2018 before Ld. XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru.

(iv) Quash the Notices No. LMO/PC/CN/0071198/16-17 dated 25.04.2016 (Annexure-C1) and 02.05.2016 (Annexure-C2) No. ILM/NTPet/Notice/30/2016-17 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and all subsequent notices and proceedings against the petitioners.

(v) Quash the seizure receipt no. 0071198 dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure-D) issued by Respondent No. 1.

(vi) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Respondent No. 1, who is complainant filed a private complaint on 16.02.2018 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. 1973, pursuant to which, PCR No. 2208/2018 came to be registered before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru and cognizance was taken for offenses under Sections 11, 29, 18(1) and 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 on 22.03.2018 resulting in the registration of the criminal case in C.C. No. 7641/2018, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Sri. Srinivas Raghavan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that:

3.1. There is no basis for the complaint having been filed and later on for cognizance having been taken. The allegation against the petitioners is that three bundles of 12 retail units of Colgate Dental Cream each of 50 grams having been wrapped in a transparent BOPP (Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene) commonly known as shrink wrap has been seized from the retailer when inspection was carried out of the said retailer’s premises.

3.2. The said shrink wrap is only for the purpose of convenience and to enable better and safer transport of the product including storage, the shrink wrap contained 12 Colgate Dental Cream of 50 grams is not sold as a single unit nor displayed for sale as single unit and therefore, no offenses can said to be made out under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 2011’ for short).

3.3. The offences under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011 would only arise if any product is offered for sale in its packaged container as a package without a maximum retail price being affixed on it. In the present case, the same is only of individual Colgate Dental Cream of 50 grams each which has been packaged separately and there being no sale or offer for sale of package of 12 Colgate Dental Cream, there is no offence which is been made out under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011.

3.4. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of this Court in Bausch and Lomb Eyecare Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. State in Crl. Pet. No. 5159/2013, dated 29.08.2019 more particularly Para-39 thereof which is reproduced hereunder:

“39. Package or container used for convenience for safety or for transportation of goods contending wholesale or resale package is only a package carried out for safety of goods and as such, no declaration is required to be given on such transportation package, in as much as secondary packing is done for the purpose of facilitating transport and smooth transit of the goods to be delivered to the buyer in the wholesale trade. There is no dispute to the fact that on the wholesale package as well as on the retail package of the biscuits sold to the customer the necessary information as contemplated of the Act and Rules is reflected on the respective packages. It is the allegation in the complaint that secondary package in which the retail packages were packed do