Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Parle In Case Alleging Violation Of Legal Metrology Rules

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while dealing with a petition filed by M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against it for not displaying the retail sale price printed on the 'principal display panel' on its FROOTI bottle, but printed on the neck of the bottle, held that same was not violative of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The instant case arose in the year 2014, while the amendment to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules thereunder were enacted in 2017. The Court therefore discerned that the Rules as in force on the date of incident would alone be applicable herein.While noting so, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that:"As per rule 8(1), every declaration ought to appear on the principal display panel. However, Rule 2(h) defines the principal display panel as the total surface area of the package. An option is also given to the manufacturer to print all the information (both pre-printed and online) either grouped together at one place on the principal display panel, or the pre-printed information grouped together and given at one place and the online information grouped together and given at another place of the principal display panel. In the instant case, the pre-printed information is given on the wrapper encircling the bottle, while the online information, though grouped together, is printed on the neck of the bottle".The Court further noted that Rule 8(2) stipulates that for soft drinks and ready-to-serve fruit beverages that the retail sale price shall be indicated either on the crown cap or on the bottle or on both, if the bottle is one which can be refilled."There is nothing in Rule 8(2) which indicates the clause to be restrictive in character. Rule 8(2) can be regarded only as an addition to and not as a restriction or exception to Rule 8(1). In other words, Rule 8(2) is only an enabling provision, enabling the manufacturer to have the option to specify those required details printed in the places mentioned in the sub-rule also". As per the factual matrix, it is noted that the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology purchased a 1.5 litre pre-packed bottle of the fruit-based beverage, 'Frooti' on March 3rd, 2014. The very next day, he issued a notice to the manufacturer, alleging that the product manufactured by them violated the provisions of rule 8(2) as well as rule 31(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2011'). It was alleged that the product did not contain the retail sale price printed on the 'principal display panel' and that the font size of the declaration of MRP was not the same as that of the net quantity declaration, thereby making it punishable under section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2009'), as well. Although a reply notice was issued by the petitioners contending that the product satisfied the requirements of the Act and the Rules, the same was disregarded by the department which proceeded to file a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging violation of Rules 4, 6, 7(2), 9(1)(b), 9(3) read with rule 8(2) and 18 of the Rules, apart from section 18 and section 36(1) of the Act.It is in this context that the instant petition was filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology.It was contended by Advocates Madhu Radhakrishnan and Nelson Joseph that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners was without any basis. It was contended that, despite the existence of a nominee under section 49 of the Act, petitioners have been arrayed as accused contrary to the statute. It was further contended that the product seized and produced before the court could not evidence commission of any offence under the Act and the Rules, since the contents of the seized package were wholly removed. It was further submitted that the allegation that on the bottle of 'FROOTI', the information on retail sale price was not printed on the label, as mandated by the Rules, is baseless and also that the numerals declaring the MRP and packing date were of sufficient size.On the other hand, Public Prosecutor K.A. Noushad, argued that in the instant case, there was no compliance of the requirement to bear the details regarding MRP and requisite information on the package, as per Rule 6. It was further contended that the name of the nominee was never informed to the first respondent, despite two show cause notices, and hence the petitioners could not take the defence of Section 49 of the Act for the same. The Court noted that the criminal proceedings had been initiated alleging violation of two specific requirements, namely, the declaration of MRP was not printed on the label and was not legible; and that the font size of the numerals of MRP and packing date was not of the required size.It is in this context the Court observed that, "Though ...

Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Parle In Case Alleging Violation Of Legal Metrology Rules

Navya Benny

Tags