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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.