The Petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.T. No.1421/05 on file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry. He is sought to be prosecuted on the allegations that M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited had committed the offence of violation of R.12(6) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 ( herein after referred for short 'Rules' only) and that he was its Sales & Customer Manager. The above Crl. M.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash Annexuere-A2 complaint in S.T. 1421/05 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2. On 19.11.04, the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Changanacherry, the 1st Respondent, inspected the premises of M/s. S.V. Pai and Brothers, Changanacherry and seized three packages containing Huggies-Nappi pads (with Leak Lock Tape) on the ground

that it did not contain the mandatory declarations as envisaged under R.12(6) of the Rules and hence, violated the Rules and S.39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, for short 'the Act' only. Annexure-A1 show cause notice was then issued by the 1st respondent and thereafter Annexure-A2 complaint was filed. On Annexure-A2 complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 30.5.05 and thereafter issued summons to the petitioner and others. According to the petitioner, continuance of proceedings based on Annexure-A2 complaint in S.T.No.1421/05 would be abuse of process of court and hence, to secure ends of justice, it is liable to be quashed.

3. I have head the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It was contented by the counsel for the petitioner that Annexure-A2 contained only a very vague averment regarding violation of R.12(6) of the Rules. Further, it was contented that the essential averment to hold him responsible for the offence allegedly committed by the company is conspicuously absent in it. A scanning of Annexure-A2 is worthy in the wake of the said contentions. The averments therein so far as they are relevant read thus:

.................................... "During the course of my surprised inspection at the premises of M/s. S.V. Pai and Brother, Changanacherry on 19.11.04, it had been noticed that eight items of the packages as per Seizure Receipt No.37/8, 38/8 and 39/8 did not bear mandatory declarations as envisaged in the said Act and Rules"...

Item No.4 is Huggies Nappi Pads-3 packets, and item No.5 is Lion Dessert King Seedless Dates-3 Packages.

Distributor of item No.4 is M/s. V.D. Mathew & Sons, Vattappally, Changanacherry-686 101 and the manufacturer is M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., 101, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600028. It's Area Sales and Customer Manager is Sri. Kedar Apte. "....Reply received from M/S. V.D. Mathew & sons was not satisfactory. The others did not submit any reply so far. It is, therefore, inevitable to proceed against the offenders. Hence the complaint".

5. The counsel for the petitioner, after adverting to the averments in the complaint, contented that the allegations regarding the violation of the provisions of the Rules and the Act are too vague and, infact they did not specifically speak of the missing declaration and how and in what manner the declaration on the packages in question, attracts violation of R.12(6) of the Rules. In the absence of such specific averments and specific allegations against the petitioner there is no justification in making the petitioner as accused based on the principle of vicarious liability, it was further contented. That apart, there is no allegation in the complaint attributing business liability on the petitioner. These contentions were raised based on S.74(1) of the Act.

6. Firstly, I may examine the merit of the contention that it contained no specific allegation to hold him responsible for the alleged offence committed by the company. For the said purpose it is profitable to extract S.74(1) of the Act and the same reads t