ORDER :

Heard the submission of Sri Leo Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking the Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2013, which are pending on the file of the Court of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, against the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1 therein.

3. The details of the proceedings, if narrated in seriatim that ultimately led to the present proceedings, are as under :

(a) On 29.03.2012, the In-charge District Inspector, Legal Metrology, Warangal-II inspected the premises of M/s. Reliance Fresh Limited, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, along with his staff. On verification of different products, he found two retail packages in violation of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Those two packages pertain to Modern Milk Classic Milk Bread. The net weight of the products is 400 grams. The Maximum Retail Price is shown as Rs.18/- (inclusive of all taxes) with a further mention “Use by date: 3-4-12”. The said Inspector found that the manufacturer failed to declare the month and year of packaging on the said Milk Bread packages. On that, the said products were seized under a cover of panchanama.

(b) The act of violation was informed to the petitioner-accused No.1 through a notice.

(c) The petitioner-accused No.1 through letter dated 04.09.2012 informed that the provision of law mentioned in the notice is not applicable to the seized products and instead Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder are applicable. He requested to give an opportunity of personal hearing. However, the opportunity of personal hearing could not be given due to time limitation.

(d) Accused Nos.2 and 3 responded to the notice issued and they accepted to compound the offence departmentally, but they did not do so.

(e) The appeal was preferred by the petitioner-accused No.1 on 25.10.2012 under Section 50 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

(f) On 26.10.2012, the Controller, Legal Metrology, Hyderabad addressed a letter to accused No.2 to approach the District Inspector, Legal Metrology, Warangal-I and pay the compounding fee.

(g) On 01.11.2011, the Controller, Legal Metrology, Hyderabad, addressed a letter to the petitioner-accused No.1 that his appeal was examined and was rejected as per the contents of the letter dated 26.10.2012 that was addressed to accused No.2.

(h) Ultimately, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings.

4. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned factual scenario, the point that emerges for consideration is:

Whether there exists any justifiable grounds to invoke the powers granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C and to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner-accused No.1 through C.C.No.7 of 2013, which is pending on the file of the Court of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, as prayed for.

5. Arguing at length in respect of the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 nor the Rules regarding the Packaged Commodities are applicable to the facts of the case and, despite bringing the same to the notice of the concerned authorities, they failed to drop the proceedings and unjustifiably a complaint was lodged, hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking to quash the proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the violation as projected, will not fall within the purview of the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The next objection/stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without following the principles of natural justice, the appeal was dismissed and therefore, the complaint lodged is not maintainable. Final submission is that though a complaint was lodged by the Department of Metrology, the le