The above writ petitions and Crl. M.Cs. are filed by the accused persons, who are being prosecuted on a complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Circle-1, Irinjalakuda. Imputing against them violation of Rule 6(1A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the PC Rules and, thus, contravention of Section 39 of the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as Standards Act, petitioners are prosecuted for the offence under Section 63 of the above Act.

2. Cognizance taken of the offence imputed in the complaint and process issued, the case numbered as S.T. No. 6367 of 2010 now awaits enquiry before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda.

3. The accused persons, some of them joining together, and one of them separately, have filed the Crl. M.Cs. and writ petitions. Accused persons ranked 9 to 14 have filed Crl. M.C. No. 951 of 2011 and W.P. (C) No. 10917 of 2011, accused persons ranked 1 to 7, Crl. M.C. 1608 of 2011 and W.P. (C). No. 20384 of 2011 and accused No. 8, Crl. M.C. No. 1607 of 2011 and W.P. (C) No. 20387 of 2011. They have filed the Crl. M.Cs. to quash the complaint invoking the inherent powers of this Court contending that criminal proceedings initiated against them are an abuse of process of the Court. Writ petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 of the PC Rules contending that it is beyond the rule making power vested with the Central Government under Section 39 read with Section 83 of the Standards Act, and, for striking down that rule by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction and also to quash the complaint filed against the writ petitioners imputing violation of that rule.

4. Though challenges raised in the Crl. M.Cs. and writ petitions stand on different footing, indisputably, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners arraying them as accused on the complaint of the Inspector, Legal Metrology, imputing violation of rule 6(1A) of the PC Rules by them has given rise to both the proceedings before this Court. In the Crl. M.Cs., prosecution proceedings launched against the petitioners/accused is impeached as an abuse of process of the Court setting forth a challenge that the newly added sub-rule, sub-rule (1A) to Rule 6 of the PC Rules cannot have application over intra-State sale of packaged goods if a true and correct interpretation is given to the words as in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1985, for short, the Enforcement Act. In the writ petitions challenge raised is over the rule making power of the Central Government to incorporate sub-rule (1A) to Rule 6 of the PC Rules impeaching its competency and authority to do so. Striking down of sub-rule (1A) to Rule 6 of the PC Rules on the challenge as aforesaid and quashing of the complaint giving rise to prosecution of the writ petitioners is canvassed in the writ petitions invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Since the questions to be resolved in the Crl. M.Cs. and writ petitions primarily rest upon the interpretation to be placed over one or other provisions of Standards Act, the PC Rules and also the Enforcement Act, and the fulcrum on which the prosecution under the complaint rests on the alleged violation of a Rule under the PC Rules, all petitions were heard together.

6. I heard learned senior counsel Sri. Chacko George, who appeared for the petitioners in the Crl. M.Cs. and writ petitions, the learned Additional State Prosecutor Sri K. I. Abdul Rasheed, who appeared for the respondent/complainant and also Assistant Solicitor General Sri. P. Parameswaran Nair for Central Government.

7. Inspector of Legal Metrology, Circle-1, Irinjalakuda on 18-7-2008 conducted an inspection over the