SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 383

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE URMILA SACHIN JOSHI- PHALKE
MUKESH S/O HARI BUTANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHA THR THE INSPECTOR LEGAL METROLOGY AMRVATI DIVISION NO 3 – Respondent
APL/716/2025



##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-NAG:1770

apl.716.2025.Judgment.odt

(1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.716 OF 2025

Mukesh s/o Hari Butani,

Aged about 60 Years,

R/o N-134, Panchsheel Park,

New Delhi – 110017. ..... APPLICANT

// VERSUS //

State of Maharashtra through

the Inspector, Legal Metrology,

Amravati Division No.3,

having Office at 2, Anand, State

Bank Colony, Near Dr. Borade’s

Hospital, Central Jail Road,

Camp, Amravati – 444 602. ....NON-APPLICANT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. H. V. Thakur, Advocate along with Mr. Parth Ranade, Advocate

for applicant.

Mr. H. D. Dubey, APP for the non-applicant /State.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

RESERVED ON : 23.01.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 03.02.2026

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Admit

3. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for

the applicant and learned APP for the State.

4. The application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the proceeding

##PAGE2##

apl.716.2025.Judgment.odt

(2

Summary Criminal Case No.1129/2015 filed by the Inspector of

Legal Metrology, pending before the 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior

Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, for quashing.

5. The criminal complaint is filed against the present

applicant alleging that the complainant is the Inspector of Legal

Metrology appointed under Section 14 of the Metrology Act, 2009

and empowered under Sections 13 and 14 of the said Act and also

as per Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to

prosecute the accused under Legal Metrology Act.

6. As per his allegation, during inspection visit to the

premises of M/s Walmart India Private Ltd. and on inspection of the

sealed packages of “Sensodyne Ultra-Sensitive (Specially Designed

for people with sensitive teeth), Fresh Gel”. It reveals that the

manufacturer has not written name and address of manufacturer,

commodity name, total number of the retail packages. These

packages were kept for sale in premises with the suppliers tax

invoice No.11587283 of M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare

Limited, Building No. E-13, Shree Krishna Complex, Harihar

Compound, Near Gajanan Petrol Pump, Bhiwandi, Thane. It is

further alleged that accused is the supplier/dealer of M/s Glaxo

Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. had committed a breach of

Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules 24 of the

Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and is,

##PAGE3##

apl.716.2025.Judgment.odt

(3

therefore, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 36(1) of

Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

7. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate has

taken cognizance and issued the process against the present

applicant.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of the

process, present application is preferred by the applicant for

quashing of the FIR on the ground that the learned Magistrate has

not considered the allegations which do not prima facie disclose

commission of any alleged offence by the accused. In fact, there

are no specific allegations against the accused i.e. the present

applicant to connect him with the alleged offence. Though, he is

the Director of the said company M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer

Healthcare Limited, but there is no whisper in the complaint that he

is responsible for the day-to-day activities of the said companies

and responsible for the act committed by the company. In fact, the

company was not being made an accused in the complaint and the

allegations about the commission of the offence is made out against

the company is not sustainable. For this ground itself, the order of

issuance of the process deserves to be quashed and set aside.

9. Heard learned counsel Mr. Harish V. Thakur for the

applicant, who reiterated the contentions and submitted that the

complaint is silent in respect of the role of the present applicant.

##PAGE4##

apl.716.2025.Judgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top