Crl.P.No.6211/2016

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6211/2016

BETWEEN:

NAVEEN SHARMA

S/O JOGINDER PAL

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

RESIDING AT H.NO.470

PHASE -2, URBAN ESTATE

PATIALA 3 147 002

PUNJAB

EARLIER

GENERAL MANAGER

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,

34^TH K M STONE, NATIONAL HIGHWAY -4

TEPPADA BEGUR VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 3 562 123

& PETITIONER

(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI.ANGAD BAXI AND SRI.GERALD MANOHARAN,

ADVOCATES)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY

FLYING SQUAD-I, NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD

BANGALORE 3 560 052

& RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.ROHITH B J, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT

(ANNEXURE-A)

AND

SUBSEQUENT

PROCEEDINGS

IN

Crl.P.No.6211/2016

2

C.C.NO.1682/2012 (ANNEXURE 3 B) ON THE FILE OF THE

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA.

THIS

CRIMINAL

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

<Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.1682/2012

on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala against

the petitioner amount to abuse of process of the

Court?=, is the question involved in this case.

2.

During 2012, petitioner was the General

Manager of M/s Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited,

Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural district (8Pepsi company9

for short). The second respondent/Inspector of Legal

Metrology, Flying Squad-1 claims to have visited the

plant of Pepsi company on 26.04.2012 at 9.45 a.m.

3.

During such inspection the squad found that

the petitioner and others violating Rule 8(1) and 2(h) of

the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules,

2011 had affixed the MRP of the product on the neck of

the bottle instead of on the label. Therefore, he filed

complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as per Annexure-A

Crl.P.No.6211/2016

3

before the JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District

to prosecute the petitioners and 5 others for the

offences punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal

Metrology Act, 2009 (8the Act9 for short).

4.

Accused Nos.2 to 6 are said to be the

directors of Pepsi company. The learned Magistrate

took cognizance of the offence and issued process

against the accused. The said proceedings are sought

to be quashed in the above petition.

5.

Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel for

Sri Gerald Manoharan, learned Advocate on record for

the petitioner seeks to challenge the above proceedings

on the ground that the company is not made party in

the complaint and there are no required allegations

about the petitioner being incharge of and responsible

for day-to-day affairs of the company, thereby there is

violation under Section 49(1)(b) of the Act.

6.

Learned senior counsel submits that though

quashing of the proceedings is sought relying on the

Crl.P.No.6211/2016

4

Circular dated 26.07.2012 issued in WM-9(37)/2012 by

Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food

and Distribution Department, Legal Metrology Division,

he does not press that ground.

7.

So far as violation of Section 49(1)(b) of the

Act in filing the complaint, he relies upon the following

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

i)

Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels

and Tours Pvt. Ltd¹

ii)

Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. vs.

Food Inspector²

8.

Per contra, Shri.Rohith B.J., learned HCGP

submits that the company was not made party in the

complaint. He further submits that the petition may be

disposed of permitting the respondent to implead the

company as the accused in the complaint.

9.

Admittedly, the petitioner is arrayed as

accused in the case on his alleged vicarious liability

1 (2012)5 SCC 661

2 (2011)1 SCC 176

Crl.P.No.6211/2016

5

under the Companies Act. Further, Pepsi company

which is responsible for bu