Different MRPs On Identical Products Was Not Offence Before 2018 Amendment To Metrology Rules: J&K&L High Court Quashes Coca-Cola Case
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a manufacturer could not be criminally prosecuted merely for declaring different Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) on identical pre-packaged commodities when the law, at the relevant time, did not prohibit such differential pricing.Ruling that criminal liability cannot be founded upon a statutory prohibition that came into force...
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a manufacturer could not be criminally prosecuted merely for declaring different Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) on identical pre-packaged commodities when the law, at the relevant time, did not prohibit such differential pricing.
Ruling that criminal liability cannot be founded upon a statutory prohibition that came into force only subsequently, the Court quashed criminal proceedings against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. arising out of the sale of a 600 ml Coca-Cola bottle carrying an MRP of ₹60 at a Domino's Pizza outlet in Katra, while the same product was available in the open market at ₹35.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal made these observations in a petition challenging a complaint instituted by the Legal Metrology Department alleging violation of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rules 2(bc) and 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The prosecution was initiated after inspectors found that Domino's Pizza, Katra was selling a 600 ml Coca-Cola bottle carrying a printed MRP of ₹60, whereas an identical bottle was available in the general retail market with an MRP of ₹35. A criminal complaint was accordingly filed alleging violation of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act read with Rules 2(bc) and 6 of the Packaged Commodities Rules.
The petitioner company challenged the proceedings, contending that every statutory declaration required under the Act had been printed on the package, the product had been sold at not above the MRP printed on the bottle, and that no provision of law existing in October 2016 prohibited a manufacturer from declaring different MRPs for identical products supplied through different commercial channels.
Court's Observations:
The High Court first examined Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act and observed that the provision principally regulates mandatory declarations to be carried on pre-packaged commodities and does not itself prohibit manufacturers from fixing different MRPs for identical products.
The Court further noted that Rule 2(bc), relied upon by the prosecution, merely defined the expression "institutional consumer" and did not create any penal prohibition. Likewise, Rule 6 required disclosure of particulars including the retail sale price on every package. Since it was an admitted position that the Coca-Cola bottle in question prominently displayed an MRP of ₹60, the requirement of Rule 6 stood complied with.
Justice Oswal then examined Rule 18 of the Packaged Commodities Rules and found that, prior to its amendment in 2017, the Rule only prohibited sale above the printed MRP and did not bar manufacturers from printing different MRPs on identical products. The Court observed that sub-rule (2A), which specifically prohibits declaration of different MRPs on identical pre-packaged commodities in certain circumstances, was introduced only by amendment with effect from 1 January 2018.
The Court held,
"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 restriction was brought into force for the first time only w.e.f. 01.01.2018."
The Court consequently observed,
"It is... manifest that on the date of the alleged inspection, there existed no bar preventing a manufacturer from declaring differential MRPs for an identical product... the uncontroverted facts fail to disclose the commission of any offense by the petitioner-company."
Having found that the alleged conduct was not prohibited by law when it occurred, the Court concluded that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the criminal process. Justice Oswal observed,
"The uncontroverted facts fail to disclose the commission of any offense by the petitioner-company."
The Court consequently held that permitting the prosecution to continue despite the absence of any statutory violation would constitute an abuse of the process of law. Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the criminal complaint, the order taking cognizance passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Reasi, and all consequential criminal proceedings against the company.
Case Title: Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Reasi & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 305