1. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in ST.No.4116/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, have filed this application to quash the proceedings as against them under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code).

2. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent, Inspector, Legal Metrology, Nedumangad, against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under section 39 of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Section 33 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 read with Rule 6 and 6(1) (1-A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 on the ground that it did not contain the necessary declaration to be made on the packet as required under the rules.

3. It is alleged in the complaint that on 11.02.2011, at about 3.15 p.m, the first respondent inspected the trade premises of Nazim Traders at Valicode, Nedumangad, functioning in the building with No.NMC 14/25-2 of Nemangad Municipality under the ownership of Rahim, Najeema Manzil, Thumpode, Chellamcode, Nedumangad and found the washing powder with trade name Tide Naturals, manufactured by the third petitioner company did not contain the required declaration under Rule 6(1) (1-A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under section 39 of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Section 33 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 read with section 63 of the Act 1976 and 51 of the Act 1985. The petitioners alleged that the necessary details required under Rule 6 (1) (1-A) are available in the packet and that has not been properly noted by the first respondent and as such no offence against them has been made out. They have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:-

“to allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, and to quash Annexure A complaint and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in S.T.No.4116 of 2011 on the file of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad against the petitioners/accused, so as to secure the ends of justice”.

4. Heard Sri.Vijayabhanu, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Jasmine, Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. Sir.Vijayabhanu, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the person to whom the complaint has to be made with telephone number and e-mail address have been furnished in the packet in case of any complaint by the consumers, which is required under the Rule 6(1) (1-A) of the above said rules and thereby there is no violation and this has been mentioned in their reply as well but that has not been properly appreciated and the complaint was filed.

6. On the other hand, Smt.Jasmine, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a social welfare legislation and there must be strict compliance of the rules and it is intended for the consumers to know the person to whom a complaint will have to be made in case of any defect in the manufacture that has not been complied with in this case. Whether the details are sufficient or not is a matter for evidence and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings invoking Section 482 of the Code.

7. It is an admitted fact that third petitioner is the manufacturer of the washing powder with trade name 'Tide Naturals' and it is a company registered under the company's Act as well. The fact that first respondent inspected the shop and found the alleged defect in the declaration on the packet is not in dispute. The fact that Annexure-B show cause notice was issued before launching the prosecution and Annexure-D notice was issued and Annexure-C and E replies were sent to the same etc are not in dispute. It is thereafter that Annexure-A complaint has been filed. In Annexure-A complaint what is mentioned is that the declaration req