DATED

19.04.2021 PASSED BY THE XXIV ACMM, BANGALORE IN

C.C.NO.10291/2021 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE

ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE

LEGAL METROLOGY ACT, 2009, R/W THE LEGAL METROLOGY

(PACKAGED COMMODITIES) RULES, 2011, AND ALL FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS IN THE SAID CASE (ANNEXURE-

A); B. QAUSHING THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.10291/2021

FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE XXIV ACMM,

BANGALORE ON 05.03.2021 AND ALL THE PROCEEDINGS

INITIATED IN THE SAID CASE PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT

(ANNEXURE-B).

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The

petitioners/accused

to

10

in

C.C.No.10291/2021 called in question the proceedings

5

so instituted for the offence punishable under the

Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (`Act’ for short) and the

Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

2. Heard learned Senior counsel Sri.Sandesh J.

Chouta along with Sri.Sandeep Huilgol, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned

HCGP appearing for the State.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present case

as presented by the prosecution are as follows:

The allegation against the petitioner is that a

publication on 10.09.2020 in a newspaper “Vijayavani”

the price of Rin Detergent, manufactured by the

petitioner is published, the quantity is not, in the said

advertisement

on

the

ground

that

the

said

advertisement was contrary to the provisions of the

Legal Metrology Act, show cause notices were issued

6

in terms of the Act on 10.09.2020, 30.11.2020 and

21.12.2020. The notices sought reply from the hands

of the petitioners as well as liberty to compound the

offence, if they so desire. Petitioners did not submit

their reply to the show cause notices so issued. On

the reply not being submitted, the proceedings are

initiated by registration of crime for the offence

punishable under Section 18(2) of the Act and

provisions of the Rules. On filing of the complaint,

cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate by his

order dated 19.04.2021. It is the said order that is

called in question in this petition.

4. The learned Senior counsel would submit that

the issue in the subject petition stands covered by two

Judgments rendered by this court in the case of

Ms.Shalini K., Vs The Inspector of Legal Metrology and

anr in W.P.No.51116/2017 and connected cases

7

disposed on 26.08.2021 and Mr.Aditya Narayan

and others Vs The State in Criminal Petition

No.7740/2020

c/w

Criminal

Petition

No.7744/2020 disposed on 02.03.2022 and would

submit that the petition be disposed following both the

orders passed by this court considering the very

provisions of the Act.

5. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing

for the respondent-State would though admit that the

petition stands covered by the aforesaid Judgments,

would seek liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings

against the petitioners in accordance with law. He

would submit that he has no objection to dispose the

petition reserving such liberty.

6. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute

and the Judgments supra stands covered to the issues

8

in the petition is not in dispute. This court in the case

of Shalini (supra) has held as follows:

“12. Therefore, it becomes necessary to consider

the offences that are alleged against the

petitioners. The offences alleged against the

petitioners are violations of Sections 28, 29 and

31 of the Act and in terms of Section 49(1) of the

Act each and every Director of the Company is

contended to be deemed to be Director and a

criminal complaint is registered. The prayer in

the complaint is to take cognizance against the

accused for offences punishable under Sections

28, 29 and 31 of the Act. Sections 28, 29 and

31 of the Act, read as follows:-

“28.

Penalty

for

making

any

transaction,

deal

or

contract

in

contravention of the prescribed standards,-

Whoever makes any transaction, deal or contract

in contravention of the standards of weights and

measures specified under Section 10 shall b