Point of Law: Any descriptions on the pre-packaged commodity would come under the definition of ‘label’, and the said expression is not included in Rule 31(2).

ORDER :

The petitioner is the 1st accused in S.T.No.1507 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The aforesaid case was registered against the petitioner and its directors, who are accused Nos.A2 to A16 in the aforesaid complaint for the offences punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter called Act, 2009) read with Rules 32(1) and 32(3) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter called Rules, 2011). The allegations raised against the petitioner and its directors were pertaining to certain discrepancies found on the packages of soft drinks manufactured by the petitioner company, namely, MIRINDA and 7 UP.

2. The prosecution case is as follows: During the course of inspection conducted by the 2nd respondent, on 30.08.2013 at 1.10 pm in the trade premises of Best Bakery, T.C.No.31/1022/6, Pettah P.O, Thiruvananthapuram, it was found that certain pre-packaged commodities kept for sale, were not packed in compliance with the stipulations contained in Act, 2009 and the Rules, 2011. On the basis of the same, a complaint was submitted and based on the said complaint, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, and it is now pending as S.T. No 1507/2014.

3. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner praying to quash all further proceedings in the aforesaid complaint on the ground that even if the entire allegations contained in Annexure-A complaint are accepted for its face value, no offences as alleged are attracted.

4. Heard Sri. Rajesh Batra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Aravind V. Mathew, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. The learned Senior counsel contends that the violations alleged against the petitioner and accused Nos.2 to 16 in the complaint would not disclose the violations of any of the said Rules. The entire proceedings are therefore a mere abuse of process of court.

6. The first violation alleged against the petitioner is that, among the seized items, MIRINDA and 7 UP did not bear the mandatory declaration of the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, of the person who can be or the office which can be contacted, in case of consumer complaints. According to the 2nd respondent, non-mentioning of the said details on the package amounts to violation of Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2011. Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2011, which stood prior to the amendment as per GSR385 (E) dated 14.05.2015 with effect from 01.01.2016 reads as follows:

“Rule 6(1) *** *** ***

(2) Every package shall bear the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, if available, of the person who can be or the office which can be, contacted, in case of consumer complaints

(3) *** *** ***”

7. The learned Senior Counsel brought my attention to Annexure-D clarification issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India on 12.01.2007. The aforesaid clarifications as contained in the said communication reads as follows:

“It is also clarified that where the manufacturer has no separate address for the consumer care cell, declaration of designation of the person (in charge of consumer care cell)/the name of the office (Consumer Care Cell, Consumer Complaint Cell etc.,), telephone number and if available, e-mail address along with name & address of manufacturer required under Rule 6(1) and mention on the package to this effect is deemed compliance of this Rule.”

8. In the light of the aforesaid clarification issued by the Government, it was contended that the allegations as to the non-compliance of Rule 6(2) cannot be treated as a violation attracting any penal consequences. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the declaration contained the details of the manufacturer along with the phone number and e-mail address of the manufacturer, and it amounts to compliance of the said rule. The learned Senior counsel also relies on the judgment of this Court reported in Shantanu Khosle (Manufacturer) and others v. Inspect