The absence of a customer care number on a packaged commodity constitutes a violation of Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and can lead to criminal proceedings under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 16.04.2015 and for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising therefrom in Criminal Complaint No.156/1W/2015.

2. The case in the nutshell is that on 21.10.2014, an inspector of Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had visited a shop by the name of M/s Sushil Kumar (Prop.) at T-135, T Type Market, Sri Niwas Puri, New Delhi 110065 and inspected a packet of Standard Brand Thunder Bomb Manufactured by M/s Standard Fireworks (P) Ltd. 1/3, Thiruthangal Road, Sivakasi 626123, but the customer care number was not mentioned on the said package. This led to the filing of the complaint in question. The Trial Court vide order dated 16.04.2015 dispensed with the examiantion of the complainant being a public servant and on perusing the complaint and documents and finding sufficient material on record, took cognizance of offence under Section 18(1) and 36(1) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the petitioner/accused was summoned for 10.09.2015. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned notice on the following grounds:

(i) That the complaint in question is undated and the same is filed in a cyclostyled pro forma in a most cryptic manner which is not permissible in law;

(ii) There is inherent lack of legal requirements in the complaint filed.

(iii) That the complaint was not filed by a legally authorized person nor the complaint is accompanied by any valid authorization.

(iv) That as per Rule 6 (1) (a) read with Rule 10 of The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, the only mandatory requirement in law is that every package shall bear thereupon a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration as to the name and complete address of the manufacturer. It is submitted that neither Rule 6 nor any other provision of The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 makes it mandatory for the manufacturer to arrange for and mention the Customer Care Number compulsorily on the product and hence, mere non-mentioning of the Customer Care Number cannot be said to be a ground for launching criminal prosecution against the petitioner even under the Act and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 especially in light of the fact that at the relevant time, the product in question manufactured by the petitioner contained the complete name and postal address of the petitioner, who can be contacted for any consumer complaint. Therefore, there was due compliance with the requirements as required by law.

(v) That no investigation of any kind as is mandated by the notification of the Weight and Measures Department, has been carried out by the Inspector for launching prosecution against the petitioner and the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed on this sole ground.

(vi) That this being the first offence of the petitioner, the same is punishable with fine only and thus there is non application of mind on the part of the Trial Court.

(vii) That the allegation made in the complaint do not disclose any offence punishable under Section 36(1) of the Act. It is submitted that any violation of Section 18(1) of the Act may be dealt only in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and not under Section 36(1) of the Act. Section 18(1) of the Act requires that all the packages must bear declarations whereas Section 36(1) of the Act requires that the packages must conform to the declarations given thereon. Thus, Section 18(1) of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 are not violated. Since there is no specific provision in the Act for violation of Section 18(1) of the Act, proceedings may be initiated for violation of Rule 6 and this comes under Rule 32(2) only but not under Section