Directors are liable for violations of the Legal Metrology Act, despite claims of non-applicability of certain rules.

ORDER

The accused Nos.1 to 9 in S.T No.1509/2018 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 11 r/w 29 and 34 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The proceedings in the aforesaid case were initiated by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a complaint filed by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Kodungalloor. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 are stated to be the Directors and Additional Directors of the 9th petitioner M/s.Yum Restaurants India Pvt.Ltd (9th accused). The 10th accused was the Manager of the Restaurant by name M/s.KFC, Ground Floor, Mughal Mall, North Nada, Kodungalloor, a restaurant under M/s.Yum Restaurants India Pvt.Ltd, where the complainant conducted an inspection on 23.05.2017. In the aforesaid inspection, the complainant is said to have detected the sale of french fries and pepsi by issuing invoice with its quantity in non-standard units such as Reg, Med and Large, which according to the accused, were the short form of Regular, Medium and Large sizes. It is stated that the petitioners are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of M/s.Yum Restaurants India Pvt.Ltd, which conducts the restaurant by name M/s.KFC at Kodungalloor where the complainant carried out the inspection on 23.05.2017. Thus, the petitioners and the 10th accused are said to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that none of the offences, as alleged in the complaint, are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further stated that the petitioners are not liable to be held guilty for the violations alleged in the complaint.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions for the complainant.

5. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Annexure-B order of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India and Annexure-C letter of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, would decriminalise the violations alleged in the complaint. There is absolutely no basis for the aforesaid argument since what is dealt with in the above documents is that the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules under the Act, are not applicable to the ready-to-eat food items like Nachos, Pop Corns, Ice Creams, Sandwiches, Burgers etc and soft drinks, bottled water, fruit juice etc sold in various counters of PVR Cinemas and also in restaurants and hotels. The issue involved in this case is not related to the applicability of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules under the Act. On the other hand, the petitioners are roped in for their act of mentioning the quantity and dimensions of French fries and Pepsi sold by them as ‘Reg’, ‘Med’ and ‘Large’ in the invoices and cash bills, in violation of the requirements of law under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 11 of the Act to show the quantity and dimensions in metric system based on the international system of units. Therefore, the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is devoid of merit.

6. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 26(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 exempts any package containing fast food items packed by restaurant or hotel from the applicability of the aforesaid Rules, and hence the petitioners are not liable for criminal prosecution in connection with the violations alleged in this complaint. Here also, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for