Back
High Court Rules Differential Pricing of Identical Packaged Beverages Permissible Prior To Amendment
The has delivered a significant ruling concerning the regulation of consumer goods, effectively quashing a criminal complaint against The court held that manufacturers could not be held criminally liable for declaring different (MRPs) on identical products before the introduction of specific prohibitory amendments in .
Case Background
The dispute originated from an inspection conducted on , by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Reasi, at a outlet in Katra. During the inspection, authorities discovered that a 600ml bottle of Coca-Cola was being sold for ₹60, whereas the same product was sold for ₹35 in other retail environments. The initiated criminal proceedings against the manufacturer and the retail outlet, alleging violations of , along with Rules 2(bc) and 6 of the .
The Argument for Autonomy
Representing the petitioner, the legal counsel argued that the manufacturer possesses the inherent autonomy to set retail prices based on specific commercial channels. The company emphasized that at the time of the alleged offense, no statutory provision or rule existed that forbade the declaration of differential MRPs. The counsel relied on the principle that cannot be applied , noting that the amendment prohibiting such dual pricing was only introduced on .
Conversely, the argued that charging an "inflated" price of ₹60 for an identical commodity compared to the standard ₹35 market rate constituted an and violated the spirit of standardized required under the Act.
Judicial Analysis and Reasoning
The court’s scrutiny revealed that the core of the dispute rested on whether a existed at the time of the inspection. Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that Rule 18, which addresses the sale and distribution of packaged commodities, did not include the restriction on differential MRPs until the insertion of sub-rule (2A) in .
The Court further clarified that the respondents failed to illustrate how the of Rule 2(bc) could substantiate a . By maintaining that the law must be interpreted as it stood on the date of the alleged infraction, the Court determined that the actions taken by the company in remained outside the scope of at that time.
Key Observations
The judgment highlighted the importance of :
-
"It must be adumbrated that although Rule 2(bc) was substantially amended in the year , the incident dates back to . The present controversy must, therefore, be resolved strictly in accordance with the unamended provision in force at the material time."
-
"It is, therefore, manifest that on the date of the alleged inspection, there existed no bar preventing a manufacturer from declaring differential MRPs for an identical product."
-
"This Court is of the considered opinion that the uncontroverted facts fail to disclose the commission of any offense by the petitioner-company."
-
"In view of the detailed discussion... this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to nothing short of an ."
The Verdict and Practical Impact
The High Court ultimately ordered the quashing of the criminal complaint against both the beverage manufacturer and the retailer. This decision reinforces the principle that cannot be founded upon regulations set to take effect at a future date. For industries operating across diverse retail channels, the ruling clarifies that price variations—when not prohibited by current, effective legislation—do not equate to criminal conduct under the Legal Metrology framework.
