O R D E R

The petitioner is the 7th accused in S.T.No.901 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam. The aforesaid case is registered on the basis of Annexure-A complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent herein against the petitioner and six others alleging that they have violated Section 9 (1) (a) of The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 hereinafter referred to as Rules 2011 and Section 18 (1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Rule 32(2) of the Rules 2011 and Section 36(1) of The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2009).

2. The facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner herein is the manufacturer of packaged drinking water and soft drinks. ‘AQUAFINA’ is a packaged drinking water manufactured and marketed by the petitioner. On 19.08.2016, the 2nd respondent visited the trade premises of M/s.PVR Cinemas, 4th floor, Oberon Mall, N.H.Bypass, Edapally and found certain violations of provisions of the Legal Meteorology Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Annexure-B is the Mahazar prepared at the time of such inspection. One of the allegations contained in Annexure-B is as follows :

“Aquafina packaged drinking water 岬屪(cid:2) നിയമാനുസൃത രേ(cid:12)ഖ岬屪(cid:14)ടു്ᩈലുകൾ legible & prominent അ്ᩤായിരുᩐ᪎. നിയമാനുസൃത᪴㑹 രേ(cid:25)്ᩂ രേ(cid:12)ഖ岬屪(cid:14)ടു്ᩈലുകൾ പൂർ걡뢡 രൂപ്ᩈി睪極 ഉ്ᩂായിരു്ᩐി്ᩤ.” The English Translation of the same reads thus: “The statutory declarations contained on the Aquafina packaged drinking water are not legible and prominent. The declarations to be made as per law were incomplete”. In addition to that, there were certain other allegations against accused Nos.1 to 6, wherein it was stated that they have sold various articles such as Popcorn, Pepsi, airated soft drinks etc. in non standard units of weight/measures.

3. Annexure-C is the receipt evidencing the seizure of certain articles including three bottles of Aquafina, manufactured by the petitioner herein. Later, a notice was issued to the accused persons by the 2nd respondent, to which the 6th accused therein i.e. M/s.PVR Cinemas, responded. As regard to the allegations raised against the petitioner herein, the reply provided by the 6th accused is that Maximum Retail Price has been mentioned on the cap/neck of the drinking water bottle. Annexure-D is the aforesaid reply.

4. Later, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid reply Annexure-A complaint was submitted by the 2nd respondent before the learned Magistrate and cognizance thereon was taken for the offences mentioned above. This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioner/7th accused challenging Annexure-A complaint and all further proceedings in ST.No.901 of 2017.

5. Heard, Sri.Rajesh Bathra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Aravind V. Mathew, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. One of the main contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offence under Rule 9(1) (a) of Rules, 2011, are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is pointed out that the violation of Rule 9(1) (a) arises when there is failure on the part of the manufacturer in making declarations which are required to be made on the package under Rules, 2011. The learned counsel contends that the declarations which are to be made under the Rules, 2011 have been specifically provided in Rule 6 thereof. Proviso to Rule 6(1) (d) contemplates that, for packages containing food articles, the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Rules made thereunder shall apply. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, packaged drinking water is a food as defined under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and hence, the failure in making the declarations as contained in Rule (6) would not attract the Rule 9(1) of Rules, 2011.

7. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the expression ‘food’ is defined under S