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.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

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.

2. Since all the Criminal Petitions are questioning the proceedings against them in the same case, i.e., STC No.51 of 2019, all the petitions are disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.

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 is an authorized officer to file the complaint against the Accused under Rule 28 of the A.P Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011, by virtue of the General Authorization issued by the Controller, Legal Metrology, AP, Hyderabad, vide G.O.Ms. No. 10 CA, F&CS (CS-III) Dept., dated 1.4.2011, read with head office Memo No. 6950/T1/2011-3 dated 10.5.2012.

4. The complaint in S.T.C. No. 51 of 2019 has been filed against Accused (A1) (Managing Director of M/s Mitashi Edutainment Pvt. Ltd.); A2 (Managing Director of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd); A3, A4, A5, and A6 (the Directors of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd); and A7 (Senior Manager and Person Incharge of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd), alleging contravention of Sections 18 and 36 of the Act, and Rule 4, Rule 2(m) read with Rule 6(1)(e), and Rule 18(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter, “the Rules, 2011”).

5. The genesis of the complaint is the inspection conducted by the District Legal Metrology Officer on 3.7.2018, at about 5:45 pm in the trading premises of M/s Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Survey No. 696, Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. At the time of inspection, A7 was present and conducting business transactions in the said premises. The inspection revealed that A7 possessed, displayed, and exposed for sale 15 retail packages of “Mitashi” HT2430 Fur, imported by M/s Mitashi Edutainment Pvt Ltd., Godown No.4&5, Infinity Industries Pvt. Ltd., Compound Pissa Dum Road, Bhiwala Village, Mumbai, and the said packages did not bear the statutory declaration of Maximum Retail Price in accordance with Rules, 2011. Hence, it was concluded that the packages violated Rule 4, Rule 2(m) read with Rule 6(1)(e), and Rule 18(1) of the Rules, 2011. Further, the accused, by possessing and displaying the packages for sale in their trading premises, thereby contravened S.18(1) of the Act r/w Rule 2(m), and Rule 6(1)(e) of the Rules, 2011, and the same is punishable under S.36(1) of the Act.

6. During the inspection, the District Legal Metrology Officer-P seized 2 defective packages from A7, out of the 15, and the remaining 13 packages were kept under safe custody in the premises under S.15 of the Act, under the cover of a panchanama in the presence of mediators LWs 3 and 4. A copy of the same was handed over to A7 on the spot with proper acknowledgment.

7. The complaint also specifies that, prior to the filing of the complaint, Notice No. 145/PC/2018-19 dated 3.7.2018 was served on the Company-M/s Instakart, through an e-mail. The Company replied to the