JUDGMENT

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—In all the above cases, the respondent-Inspector of Legal Metrology, Mangalore Sub-Division, Mangalore has submitted private complaints alleging offences against the petitioners under Sections 18(1), 31, 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity) and also for violation of Rules 11(1)(e), 18, 6(1)(a), (d), (e), (f) and 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules, for brevity). In some cases, it is alleged that Rule 4, 6(1)(d) is violated and in some other cases Rules 6(1)(a), (d), (e) are violated.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein strenuously contends that, though the Rules invoked by the respondent by way of the above said criminal complaints attracted violation of Rules 6(1)(d), 4 and 6(3) in some cases, but Section 18(1) of the Act or 36(1) of the Act are not at all attracted. Even in Criminal Petition No.8106/2013, though Rule 6(1)(a) to (d) is attracted, but again, Sections 18, 31 and 36(1) of the Act are not at all at