Back
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER
Radha Krishnan Vijay Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed by district legal metrology officer (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. inspection revealed non-compliance (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioners argue vicarious liability (Para 8) |
| 4. public prosecutor argues delivery involvement (Para 9) |
| 5. legal metrology act's purpose (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. section 18 requirements (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30) |
| 7. logistics company not liable (Para 28) |
| 8. proceedings quashed (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Criminal Petition No. 4557 of 2019 is filed by Accused No.3, Criminal Petition No. 5018 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 7, Criminal Petition No.5020 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 4, Criminal Petition No.5021 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 2, Criminal Petition No.5022 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 6, and Criminal Petition No.5023 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 5, invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, seeking quashing of proceedings in S.T.C. No. 51 of 2019 pending on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal.
3. A complaint was filed by the District Legal Metrology Officer, Legal Metrology, who is an officer appointed under S.14 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter, “the Act”) and
Directors of a logistics company cannot be prosecuted under the Legal Metrology Act without the company being made an accused, as they are not involved in manufacturing or labeling.
The complaint was not maintainable without the company being made a party to the proceedings, and the direction to investigate the matter after receiving the complaint was in violation of Sec. 202 of....
Allegations do not satisfy requirement of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18, hence question of raising same as a defense would not at all arise.
Prosecution for violations of the Legal Metrology Act is unwarranted if the packaging complies with the standards of legibility and prominence.
Directors are liable for violations of the Legal Metrology Act, despite claims of non-applicability of certain rules.
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).
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
