Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12252
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
G. GIRISH, J
VENKATASWAMY SREENIVASA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 5560/2019
BINOY VASUDEVAN, SRI.GRACIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
Compliance with Legal Metrology regulations is mandatory regardless of licenses under other laws, and liability for violations extends to responsible individuals within a company.
Headnote:(A) Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - Sections 18, 36(1), and 49 - Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 - Rules 4, 7(2), 18(1), and 32(2) - Accused are Directors of a company charged with violations of packaging regulations - The petitioners contended that their valid license under the Food Safety and Standards Act exempts them from Legal Metrology regulations - Court found this argument unsustainable as Rule 7(5) mandates compliance regardless of other laws - The Managing Director is liable under Section 49, while the other Directors were not shown to be responsible for the company's conduct. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Prosecution - The court quashed the prosecution against two petitioners due to lack of evidence of their responsibility for the company's violations, while allowing prosecution against the Managing Director and the company. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused in a case for violating packaging regulations, argued that their license under another law exempted them from compliance.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the prosecution against two petitioners was quashed due to insufficient evidence of their responsibility, while the Managing Director remains liable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were exempt from Legal Metrology regulations due to their license under another law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compliance with Legal Metrology rules is mandatory regardless of other licenses held by the company.
Result: The prosecution against petitioners 1 and 2 is quashed; prosecution against the third petitioner and the company is allowed.
O R D E R
The petitioners are the accused Nos.2 to 4 in S.T.No.356/2017 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thrissur. The aforesaid case arose out of a complaint filed by the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology, Thrissur alleging the violation of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules 4, 7(2) and 18(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The aforesaid violations are stated to be punishable under Section 36 (1) of the and Rule 32(2) of the Legal metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Petitioners are stated to be the Directors and Managing Director respectively of the 1st respondent company which is the manufacturer of packaged protein powder.
2. Allegation against the petitioners is that when the Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology, Thrissur conducted an inspection in the establishment run by the petitioners on 12.05.2016, it was found that 1 Kilogram packaged commodity of protein powder kept there for sale did not conform to the requirements of Rule 7(2) and Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules.
3. The complaint was originally lodged against the company by name M/s.British Nutritions Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore run by the petitioners. Later on the complainant filed a report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that the petitioners are the Directors and Managing Director respectively of the aforesaid company, and that they also may be arraigned in the list of accused.
4. The main contention of the petitioners is that, since they are having a valid licence issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and following the rules and regulations framed thereunder, the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules are not applicable to the products being sold by the petitioners.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions representing the respondents.
6. The contention of the petitioners that the relevant provisions of the Legal Metrology Act and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules are not applicable to their products since they have got licence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the rules framed thereunder, cannot be accepted in view of the provisions contained in Rule 7(5) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules. Rule 7(5) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules is extracted hereunder for the sake of easy reference.
“7. Principal display panel - its area, size and letter etc.
(1) xxxx
xxxx
(5) Except size of the numbers and letters for declaring net weight, retail sale price, date of expiry or best before or use by date (wherever and as applicable) and consumer care details, the provisions under sub-rules (1) to (4) shall not apply to a package if the information to be specified on such package under this rule is also required to be given by or under any other law for the time being in force.”
7. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that in respect of the size of numbers and letters for declaring net weight, retail sale price, date of delivery or best before or use by date or consumer care details, the provisions under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 are mandatory even though any other law would provide the parameters of label display containing the above particulars. Thus the contention of the petitioners that they are not bound by the requirements of the relevant rules under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 since they have got the licence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, is not legally sustainable. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioners against the maintainability of the prosecution initiated against them is devoid of merit.
8. As per Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 , when an offence under the said Act has been committed by a company, the person who has been nominated by the company as
