Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1875
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER, J
Nishant Vermon – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/5064/2019
Directors of a logistics company cannot be prosecuted under the Legal Metrology Act without the company being named as an accused, as they are not involved in manufacturing or labeling.
Headnote:(A) Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - Sections 18 and 36 - Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 - Complaint filed against directors of a logistics company for contravening provisions regarding pre-packaged commodities - The logistics company is not involved in manufacturing or labeling, thus not liable under the Act - The absence of the company as an accused renders prosecution of directors unsustainable. (Paras 4, 16, 28)
(B) Vicarious Liability - Directors of a company cannot be prosecuted without the company being made an accused - The absence of specific allegations against directors regarding their responsibility in the company’s operations leads to quashing of proceedings. (Paras 26, 27)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed against the directors of a logistics company for violations related to pre-packaged commodities, alleging that they were vicariously liable despite the company not being named as an accused. The complaint arose from an inspection revealing non-compliance with labeling requirements. (Paras 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the logistics company was not involved in the manufacturing or labeling of the products, and thus the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act did not apply to the directors. The absence of the company as an accused made the prosecution of the directors unsustainable. (Paras 28, 29)
Issues: The main issues were whether the logistics company could be held liable under the Legal Metrology Act and whether the directors could be prosecuted without the company being named as an accused. (Paras 8, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the logistics company’s role was limited to transportation, and without specific allegations against the directors, the prosecution was not sustainable. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Act do not apply to logistics providers. (Paras 16, 28)
Result: Proceedings against the petitioners quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed against directors (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. inspection revealed violations (Para 5) |
| 3. petitioners argue vicarious liability (Para 8) |
| 4. prosecution based on delivery (Para 9) |
| 5. legal metrology act purpose (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. section 18 requirements (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30) |
| 7. logistics company not liable (Para 28) |
| 8. proceedings quashed (Para 29) |
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Petition No. 4545 of 2019 is filed by Accused No.3, Criminal Petition No. 5009 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 7, Criminal Petition No.5012 of 2019 is filed by A5, Criminal Petition No.5015 of 2019 is filed by A6, Criminal Petition No.5041 of 2019 is filed by A4, and Criminal Petition No.5064 of 2019 is filed by A2, invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, seeking quashing of proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2019 pending on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal.
2. Since all the Criminal Petitions are questioning the proceedings against them in the same case, i.e., STC No.46 of 2019, all the petitions are disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.
3. A complaint was filed by the District Legal Metrology Officer, Legal Metrology, who is an officer appointed under S.14 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter, “the Act”) and is an authorized officer to file the complaint against the Accused under Rule 28 of the A.P Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011, by virtue of the General Authorization issued by the Controller, Legal Metrology, AP, Hyderabad, vide G.O.Ms. No. 10 CA, F&CS (CS-III) Dept., dated 1.4.2011, read with head office Memo No. 6950/T1/2011-3 dated 10.5.2012.
4. The complaint in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2019 has been filed against Accused (A1) (Managing Director of M/s Redington India Ltd); A2 (Managing Director of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd); A3, A4, A5, and A6 (the Directors of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd); and A7 (Senior Manager and Person Incharge of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd), alleging contravention of Sections 18 and 36 of the Act, and Rule 4, Rule 6(2), and Rule 18(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter, “the Rules, 2011”).
5. The genesis of the complaint is the inspection conducted by the District Legal Metrology Officer on 3.7.2018, at about 5:30 pm in the trading premises of M/s Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Survey No. 696, Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. At the time of inspection, A7 was present and conducting business transactions in the said premises. The inspection revealed that A7 possessed, displayed, and exposed for sale 36 retail packages of “MSi” Notebook- 10P6, GL638RC262IN, imported by M/s Redington Ltd., “Redington House,” Centre Point Industrial Estate, Chennai, India, and the said packages did not bear the statutory declaration of the person in- charge or office address for consumer complaints. Hence, it was concluded that the packages violated Rule 4, Rule 6(2), and Rule 18(1) of the Rules, 2011. Further, the accused, by possessing and displaying the packages for sale in their trading premises, thereby contravened Section 18(1) of the Act r/w Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2011, and the same is punishable under Section 36(1) of the Act.
6. During the inspection, the District Legal Metrology Officer-P Satyanarayana, seized 2 defective packages from A7, out of the 36, and the remaining 34 packages were kept under safe custody in the premises under S.15 of the Act, under the cover of a panchanama in the presence of mediators LWs 3 and 4. A copy of the same was handed over to A7 on the spot with proper acknowledgment.
7. The complaint also specifies that, prior to the filing of the complaint, Notice No. 144/PC/2018-19 dated 3.7.2018 was served on the Company-M/s Instakart, through an e-mail. The Company replied to the notice on 19.12.2018, stating that the seizure report had already been sent to the concerned Brand/Seller/Manufacturer, and that in terms of Rule 18(1) of
