ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the complaint in STC No.23 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet against petitioner/A2.

2. The case of the 2nd respondent/the District Legal Metrology Officer, is that he visited M/s.Sri Laxmi Super Market at Suryapet and on inspection, found ‘Lifebuoy Total Sanitizer’ with quantity 500 ml and stored for the purpose of distribution/sale to consumers. On examination, the declaration as required under Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules-2011 are not mentioned which are;

(1) The word net quantity is not mentioned. It is mentioned as Net vol. of 500 ml instead of net quantity as required under law.

(2) The name of the person or his designation who can be or the office which can be contacted, in case of consumer complaints, was not furnished either on the principal display panel of the packages or anywhere on the said packages.

3. For the said reasons, the package of the product was packed and taken. The said non mentioning of the net quantity as required under law amounts to contravention of Section 18, 31(1), 30 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rules 32 of Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules 2011 and Rules 4, 2(f), 6(1) (c), 6(2) and 18 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

4. On the basis of the product not giving the net quantity and also the name of the person or his designation, who can be contacted was neither furnished nor displayed on the packages, complaint was filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the product in question is liquid and the appropriate measure would be by volume and not quantity. However, when it is mentioned as 500 ml, it is in compliance of the quantity as mentioned in the Rules. Further, the telephone numbers and other details were of the company declared on the package of the product for the purpose of query/feedback, as such, Rule 6(2) of the Packaged Commodities were also complied. He further submits that M/s.Sai Corporation/A1 had in fact paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the 2nd respondent/District Legal Metrology Officer for the purpose of compounding the offence. The offence was compounded by receiving the fee. In the said circumstances, the proceedings in STC are liable to be quashed.

6. The contraventions are two fold; regarding the quantity not being mentioned and secondly the details of the company for queries etc., as required under Rule 6(2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules were not complied with.

7. Firstly, in the event of the 2nd respondent/District Legal Metrology Officer accepting the amount of Rs.25,000/- for compounding the contraventions and permitted by the Court, the alleged contravention by virtue of compounding is effaced. Cognizance is taken of the offence and not offender. There cannot be any selective compounding of the offence when the accused are more than one. If the complainant goes ahead and compounds the offence even at the instance of one of the accused, it cannot be said that compounding is confined to that accused. There cannot be selective compounding in a case. Once the offence itself is compounded, the question of continuance of proceedings against any of the accused in the said case does not arise. As already stated, the compounding is for the offence alleged and not the offender.

8. Section 320 of Cr.P.C deals with compounding of the offences under IPC. Compounding is not defined in Code of Criminal Procedure. Compounding in general would mean a process whereby a person in default filing an application with the authority who can compound the offence. Once the concerned authority accepts the proposal for compounding, the default/offence ceases to exist for prosecution after acceptance by the person/authority to compound the offence. Similarly, under Section 320 of Cr.P.C, certain categories of criminal offences can be compounded at the instance of the victim/aggrieved. In case such an application is made by the victim/aggriev