Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1878
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER, J
Abhy Maheswari – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana and another – Respondent
CRLP/5027/2019
Logistics companies are not liable under the Legal Metrology Act for violations related to pre-packaged commodities if 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 violations related to 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, 32)
(B) Vicarious Liability - Directors cannot be held vicariously liable for the company's actions if the company itself is not accused - The court emphasized the necessity of specific allegations against individuals in corporate structures. (Paras 8, 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
The complaint was filed by the District Legal Metrology Officer against the directors of a logistics company for alleged violations of the Legal Metrology Act during an inspection of their premises, where pre-packaged commodities were found lacking mandatory declarations. (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 could not be prosecuted under the Legal Metrology Act. (Paras 32, 33)
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 an accused. (Paras 8, 32)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the logistics company’s role was limited to transportation and did not include manufacturing or labeling, thus the provisions of the Act did not apply to them. (Paras 16, 32)
Result: Proceedings against the petitioners quashed.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Petition No. 4544 of 2019 is filed by Accused No.3, Criminal Petition No. 5017 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 7, Criminal Petition No.5024 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 4, Criminal Petition No.5025 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 2, Criminal Petition No.5026 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 6, and Criminal Petition No.5027 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 5, invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, seeking quashing of proceedings in S.T.C. No. 52 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.52 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. 52 of 2019 has been filed against Accused (A1) (Managing Director of M/s Paired Online Technologies P 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(1)(a), (aa), 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 6:30 pm in the trading premises of M/s Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Survey No. 696, GundlaPochampally 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 135 retail packages of “PTron Smart” Accessories, Sono, Bluetooth speaker, packed by M/s Paired Online Technologies (P) Ltd., Plot No.33-34, Dwarka Sector 28, Delhi-110075, and the said packages did not bear the statutory declaration of 1)Name and address of the manufacturer; 2)Country of Origin; and 3) Person Incharge or office address for consumer complaints. Hence, it was concluded that the packages violated Rule 4, Rule 6(1)(a), (aa), 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 S.18(1) of the Act r/w Rule 6(1)(a), (aa) and Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2011, and the same is punishable under S.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 135, and the remaining 133 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 mediator LW3. 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. 142/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 the Rules, 2011, the concerned Brand/Seller/Manufacturer is responsible. The Company also requested the withdrawal of the notice and for no further action to be taken against the Company and its Directors. The Company’s request was rejected vide Office Letter No.
