The petitioners in these petitions are before this Court

seeking the following prayer:

(i)

Quashing the order dated 20.02.2020 passed

by the Hon’ble Court of XXXII Additional Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bengaluru,

in

C.C.No.5885/2020, taking cognizance of the

offences

allegedly

committed

by

the

Petitioners under the provisions of the Legal

Metrology Act, 2009, read with the Legal

Metrology

(Packaged Commodities)

Rules,

2011, and all further proceedings in the said

case insofar as it relates to the petitioners

herein (Annexure ‘A’);

(ii)

Quashing the complaint in C.C.No.5885/2020

filed by the Respondent before the Hon’ble

Court of XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan

6

Magistrate, Bengaluru, on 07.02.2020 and all

the proceedings initiated in the said case

pursuant to the complaint insofar as it relates

to the Petitioners herein (Annexure ‘B’);

(iii)

Quashing

the

impugned

order

dated

11.11.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Court of

XXXII

Additional

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.5885/2020,

reissuing summons to the Petitioners herein

(Annexure ‘A’); and

(iv)

Pass such order or further orders as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and

circumstances of the case, in the interests of

justice and equity.”

2. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel for

the petitioners, Smt. Yashodha K.P., learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent in both these cases and

perused the material on record.

7

3. The petitioners are the directors of the Hindustan

Unilever Limited (‘the HUL’ for short). What triggers the

initiation of the complaint by the respondent is that, at the time

of inspection of the packaging unit, it was found that the HUL

had committed offence punishable under Section 36 of the Legal

Metrology Act, 2009 (‘the Act’ for short) read with Section 49(1)

of the Act. The reason for such allegation is that, the retail sale

price declared on five pre-packed packages of “Lakme Brand 9 to

5 Naturale Aloe Aqua Gel of 50 gram each”, five pre-packed

packages of “Surf Excel Matic Front Load 4 kgs. + 2 Kgs. Free”

detergent powder and four pre-packed packages of “Vaseline

Cocoa Glow Moisturising Cream of 250 ml. each, were not

marked as per the illustration in terms of Rule 6(1)(e) of the

Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (‘the Rules’

for short). Such violation is alleged to be constituting an offence

under Section 18 of the Act read with Rule 6(1)(e) of the Rules,

which is punishable under Section 36 of the Act. On

registration of the complaint, the learned Magistrate takes

cognizance on 20.02.2020, directing registration of a criminal

8

case against the petitioners and issuance of summons. It is at

that juncture, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this

Court in these petitions.

4. Though several issues are raised by the petitioners in

these petitions, two issues stand covered by the judgment of this

Court rendered in W.P.No.51116/2017 and connected cases

disposed on 26.08.2021, which are not disputed by the

learned High Court Government Pleader, I deem it appropriate to

terminate the present proceedings by following the judgment in

W.P.No.51116/2017 (supra), on those two issues.

5. The two issues are that, one, the HUL – the Company is

not made a party to the proceedings, while the directors are, this

Court considering this very issue in the judgment rendered in

W.P.No.51116/2017 (supra), has held as follows:

“7. The learned Senior Counsel representing

the petitioners in all these cases would submit that it

is premises of the distribution network of the Company

that was searched and the petitioners are only

9

employees of the Company. The Company having not

been arrayed as an accused, the complaint registered

against the petitioners, on the face of it, would not be

maintainable and the issue stands covered by the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANITA

HADA v. GODFATHER TRAVELS AND TOURS

PRIVATE LIMITED¹. This fact that the issue in these

petitions stand