A manufacturer cannot be criminally prosecuted for declaring differential MRPs on identical pre-packaged commodities if such practice was not prohibited by statute at the time of the occurrence, as penal provisions cannot be applied retrospectively.

JUDGMENT

1. The Criminal Complaint titled 'Inspector Legal Metrology, Reasi v. Domino’s Pizza Katra & Anr. , preferred by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Reasi (respondent No. 2 herein) against the petitioner and the co-accused for the alleged commission of offence under Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 ('the Act') read with Rules 6 and 2(bc) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 ('the Rules'), along with the subsequent order taking cognizance and issuing process passed thereon by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Munsiff), Reasi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Magistrate'), are sought to be quashed, inter alia, on the following grounds:

a. That the bottle in question obviously bears all declarations mandated by the Act and rules made thereunder including net quantity and MRP and there is no allegation that any bottle was sold above the printed MRP.

b. That even, otherwise the price of concerned beverage and other packaged commodities manufactured by the petitioner is not fixed or regulated by any law for the time being in force, therefore the petitioner has complete freedom to fix the price of the said commodities.

c. That mere act of declaring different MRPs for the same packaged products cannot constitute contravention of any provisions of law including the Legal Metrology Act and Rules made thereunder.

d. That the sale of packaged beverages/bottles within select channel environment cannot be equated to a sale simpliciter at a standard retail outlet in the open market. The ambience provided to customers at such select channels completely distinguish the transaction from general trade. Consequently, pricing or supply within these distinct commercial frameworks cannot be subjected to a strict parity comparison for the purposes of the Act and Rules.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to supplement the grounds of challenge made in the petition, has submitted that there was no statutory bar or prohibition under the Act or the Rules preventing a manufacturer from declaring different Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) for an identical commodity based on distinct channels of trade at the relevant point of time. Dual pricing is a widely recognized socio-economic reality. The practice of declaring different MRPs on identical products under varying commercial market circumstances is not only judicially protected but also legislatively recognized. This is evident from the explicit statutory framework of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which provides for the valuation of excisable goods with reference to the retail sale price declared on the package, and explicitly contemplates scenarios where different retail prices are declared on different packages of identical goods. The Act and the Rules merely mandate the prominent declaration and printing of the MRP on the packaging. So long as a commodity (such as a 600 ml beverage bottle carrying an MRP of ₹60 at a select premium outlet and ₹35 elsewhere) carries all mandatory statutory declarations and is sold at or below its own uniquely printed MRP, no offence under Section 18 of the Act read with Rules 6 and 18(2) of the Rules can be said to be made out. The impugned criminal complaint is fundamentally misguided as it is founded entirely on a mere 'price disparity' between different retail environments. The complaint does not contain any allegation of overcharging above the printed MRP, nor does it allege any structural violati