Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1877
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER, J
Dinesh Varma – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana And Another – Respondent
CRLP/5029/2019
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 - Court held that logistics providers are not liable under the Act as they do not engage in manufacturing, packing, or labeling - The absence of the company as an accused renders prosecution of directors unsustainable. (Paras 4, 16, 28)
(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, 26, 27)
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, where it was found that pre-packaged commodities lacked necessary labeling. (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 16, 28)
Issues: Whether the directors of a logistics company can be prosecuted for violations of the Legal Metrology Act when the company itself is not accused. (Paras 8, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the logistics company’s role was limited to transportation, and without the company being implicated, the prosecution of its directors was erroneous. (Paras 16, 28)
Result: Proceedings against the petitioners quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed by district legal metrology officer (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioners argue vicarious liability (Para 8) |
| 3. public prosecutor argues delivery involvement (Para 9) |
| 4. legal metrology act ensures consumer protection (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. section 18 regulates pre-packaged commodities (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30) |
| 6. logistics company not liable under act (Para 28) |
| 7. proceedings against petitioners quashed (Para 29) |
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Petition No. 4560 of 2019 is filed by Accused No.3, Criminal Petition No. 5016 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 7, Criminal Petition No.5019 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 2, Criminal Petition No.5029 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 4, Criminal Petition No.5030 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 6, and Criminal Petition No.5031 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. 48 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.48 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. 48 of 2019 has been filed against Accused (A1) (Managing Director of M/s Cad Dies and Tooling); 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), 6(3), 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 4:15 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 5 retail packages of “Signora Care MAMIMA Mixer Grinder”, manufactured by M/s Cad Dies & Tooling, Hissar Road, Ambala City-134003, and the said packages did not bear the statutory declaration of the person in- charge or office address for consumer complaints, and that individual sticker has been affixed for declaration of Month and year of Manufacturing/ packing and retail sale price. Hence, it was concluded that the packages violated Rule 4, Rule 6(2), Rule 6(3) 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(2), 6(3) 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 the defective packages from A7, under S.15 of the Act, under the cover of a panchanama. 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. 126/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 18.12.2018, stating that the seizure report had a
