The judgment established the principle that disputed questions of fact and the classification of products under specific rules are not suitable for adjudication in a writ petition, and criminal proceedings may be the appropriate remedy for alleged violations.

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing No. WP(Crl.) 1223/2011 and WP(Crl.) 1259/2012 as both the writ petitions are between the same parties and substantially common question of law is involved in both the petitions.

2. The petition bearing No. WP(Crl.) 1223/2011 u/S 482 Cr.P.C. r/w Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuing writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing two criminal complaints bearing Nos. APP/WEST/ZIM/1926 and APP/WEST/ZIM/111/11 pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate filed u/s 39 and 63 of SWM Act, 1976 and Rules 11 and 39 (2) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a marketer of personal hygiene, body care and shoe care products. The petitioner was a license holder of the trademark ‘KIWI’which is an internationally reputed brand of shoe creams and shoe polishes. Respondent No.2 conducted an inspection at the departmental store of M/s. Reliance Fresh situated at 27, Ground Floor, Paschim Vihar Extn., New Delhi-110063 on 21st April, 2010 and took samples of certain products on display at the departmental store and, inter alia, inspected a packet/container of ‘Kiwi shoe polish’displaying an MRP of Rs. 25/- (inclusive of taxes), manufactured in December, 2007, net weight 40 gms. (when packed).

4. A notice dated 24th May, 2010 was issued to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was informed that it was liable to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- per Director for compounding of the offence for contravention of Sections 39, 48, 51 and 63 of SWM Act, 1976 and Rules 11 and 39 (2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977.

5. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2 again conducted an inspection at another departmental store of M/s. Bhatia Medical Store, situated at Cottage No. 37, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 on 15th September, 2010 and inspected a packet/container of „Kiwi Wax Rich shoe polish’displaying an MRP of Rs.33/- (inclusive of taxes), manufactured in July, 2009, net weight 40 gms. (when packed) and thereafter, issued another notice dated 27th December, 2010 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- per Director for compounding of the offence for contravention of Sections 39 and 63 of SWM Act, 1976. It is alleged that there was no violation of SWM Act 1976 or the Rules 11 and 39 (2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977 as ‘Kiwi Shoe polish’and ‘Kiwi Wax Rich shoe polish’, fell within the expression ‘Cream’ as appearing at S.No.6 of the Fourth Schedule to the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and petitioner was required by law as existing at the relevant time, to declare the quantity of commodity qualified by the words “when packed”. The petitioner further pointed out that the impugned packet of ‘Kiwi shoe polish/Kiwi Wax Rich shoe polish/shoe cream’was manufactured and sold before the amendment to Rule 11 and the Fourth Schedule to the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977 came into effect. Even otherwise, it was in public interest that the petitioner made the correct disclosure with regard to the net weight of the packet as shoe polish/shoe cream packages naturally loose weight after packaging due to loss of moisture and evaporation of the turpentine oil which is one of the ingredients of the shoe polish/shoe cream. Therefore, no mala fide or mens rea could be attributed to the petitioner. Without considering the fact that the petitioner has not committed any infraction of law, the respondent insisted upon the petitioner to pay the compounding fine of Rs.2000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively failing which they shall be prosecuted in accordance with law. The petitioner did not submit to the unreasonable and unlawful stand taken by the respondents. Therefore, the respondents filed two complaints bearing Criminal Compl