HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4556, 5006, 5007, 5011, 5033 and 5056 OF 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Criminal Petition No. 4556 of 2019 is filed by Accused No.3, Criminal Petition No. 5006 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 2, Criminal Petition No.5007 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 6, Criminal Petition No.5011 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 7, Criminal Petition No.5033 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 5, and Criminal Petition No.5056 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 4, invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, seeking quashing of proceedings in S.T.C. No. 49 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.49 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. 49 of 2019 has been filed against Accused (A1) (Managing Director of M/s Nova Marketing); 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 5:00 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 910 retail packages of “Nova Amaze Dry Iron”, manufactured by M/s Nova Marketing, #201, 4th Cross, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore-560027, 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 5 packages from A7, out of the 910, and the remaining 905 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. 125/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/Manufactureris 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. 142/PC/2018-19 dated 26.12.2018. Thereafter, the complaint was filed in the Cour