ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

2. This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the impugned order dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure-B) passed in C.C.No.17160/2012, on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner and another for the alleged violations under Rules 4, 6 and 27 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (‘Rules 2011’ for short) and Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (‘Act 2009’ for short), which is punishable under Rule 32 of the Rules 2011 and Section 36 read with Section 49 of the Act 2009 and also to quash the complaint dated 26.07.2012 Annexure-A, pending on the file of LVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and pass such other orders.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent/complainant by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is that, this petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in the capacity of General Manager (Legal), Pearson Education, M/s. Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd. It is contended that on 27.01.2012 at 03.00 p.m., Inspector of Legal Metrology along with panch witness visited and inspected the premises of Sri Abhishek L (Director), M/s. Surya Infotainment Products Pvt. Ltd. and found that Mr. K.M.Paniraj, Business Head was present in the shop and he had in his possession one pre-packed package of Pearson published Engineering Drawing Textbook. On the said package, manufacturer name and full address, maximum retail price, manufactured month and year or packed month and year, net contents inside the package, consumer care telephone number and e-mail address has not been mentioned. But Act and Rules insists to mention the above declarations. Retailer has kept said packages for sale and hence, the same amounts to an offence under Section 18 of the Act 2009 read with Rule 18(1) of the Rules 2011 and the same is punishable under Section 36 of the Act 2009. In the complaint, it is stated that retailer has approached this Court and filed writ petition and stay was granted and hence, retailer case is kept pending until further direction from the High Court. However, it is contended that accused Nos.1 and 2 are manufacturer-cum-publisher of the above said package and they have violated the rules and conditions imposed under the Rules and they are punishable and hence, made this petitioner as accused No.2.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that accused No.1 has already approached this Court and case against accused No.1 was quashed by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2019 in Crl.P.No.1931/2015 and copy of the same is also produced before this Court. M/s. Surya Infotainment Products Pvt. Ltd. preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.22778/2012 challenging the applicability of the provisions of the Act 2009 and Rules 2011 and the same is pending for consideration. It is also contended that the issues with regard to the definition of pre-packaged commodity is pending before the larger bench of the Supreme Court. It is contended that the petitioner is not a person nominated under Section 49(3) of the Act 2009 in respect of the compliance of the provisions of the Act 2009 and Rules made therein. It is contended that the petitioner was not holding any post directly involving in the day-to-day affairs of Dorling Kindersley and he was not in charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Dorling Kindersley. He was neither a Managing Director nor a Director with the company. The petitioner was a normal employee carrying out his duties. It is also contended that the Trial Judge ought not to have taken cognizance against this petitioner based on the impugned complaint and very taking of cognizance against this petitioner is bad in law. The Engineering Drawing Textbook published by Pearson India Ltd. cannot be consid