ORDER

The manufacturer and the Directors of the fruit-based beverage popularly known as ‘FROOTI’ are facing prosecution for alleged violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short ‘the Rules’). Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'), challenging the complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology.

2. On 03.03.2014, the first respondent purchased a 1.5-

litre pre-packed plastic bottled fruit-based beverage called ‘FROOTI’. On the next day, he issued a notice to the manufacturer, alleging that the product manufactured by them violated the provisions of rule 8(2) as well as rule 31(2) of the Rules. The reason alleged was that as a bottle not intended to be refilled, the product purchased by him did not contain the retail sale price printed on the ‘principal display panel’ and also that the font size of the declaration of MRP was not the same as that of the net quantity declaration and hence punishable under section 36(1) of the Act.

3. Immediately, a reply notice was issued on behalf of the petitioners to the first respondent, contending that the product satisfied the requirements of the Act and the Rules, and hence there was no violation. However, disregarding the reply notice, the first respondent filed a complaint on 18.08.2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging violation of Rules 4, 6, 7(2), 9(1)(b), 9(3) read with rule 8(2) and 18 of the Rules, apart from section 18 and section 36(1) of the Act. Cognizance was taken as C.C No. 3240 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The manufacturer, the manufacturing unit, the Chairman and Managing Director and other Directors of the manufacturer are all arrayed as accused. The accused are seeking to quash the complaint.

4. Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, learned counsel contended that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of court as it is instituted with malafides without any basis. It was contended that, despite the existence of a nominee under section 49 of the Act, petitioners have been arrayed as accused contrary to the statute. Learned counsel also argued that from the very complaint itself, it is evident that the product seized and produced before the court cannot evidence the commission of any offence under the Act and the Rules, since the contents of the seized package were wholly removed. It was further submitted that the allegation that on the bottle of 'FROOTI', the information on retail sale price was not printed on the label, as mandated by the Rules, is baseless and also that the numerals declaring the MRP and packing date were of sufficient size. According to the learned counsel, the allegation in the complaint is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the statutory provisions, then in force, especially the definition of the terms ‘label’ and ‘principal display panel’ as every detail and information contemplated by the Act and the Rules were followed.

5. Sri.K.A.Noushad, learned Public prosecutor opposed the petition and contended that as per Rule 6, every package has to “bear thereon or on the label”, the details regarding MRP and requisite information as contemplated under the Rules and the Act and that in the instant case, there was no compliance of the Rules. It was further contended that the name of the nominee was never informed to the first respondent, despite two show cause notices and hence petitioners cannot take the cover of section 49 of the Act. The learned Public Prosecutor also contended that the scope of interference under section 482 Cr.P.C is very limited and that the case can only be decided on merits, that too after a trial.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. Section 18 of the Act stipulates that every pre-packaged