IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 20144 of 2008(W) ---------------------------------- (ST.1731/2005 of J.M.F.C.,VAIKOM) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S.HEINZ INDIA PVT. LTD, 7TH FLOOR, D. SHIVSAGAR, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER- LEGAL AFFAIRS NILESH LELE. BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.NAVEEN SHERRY LUKOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHARPUAM. 2. INSPECTOR, LEGEL METROLOGY, VAIKOM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ WP(C).No. 20144 of 2008(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN S.T. 1731/2005 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VAIKOM. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15/10/2007 IN CRL.MC. 3540/2005 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE SVS/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.C.NO.20144 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated 13th September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Private Limited Company manufacturing Glucon-D. Inspector of Legal Metrology, Vaikom filed Ext.P1 complaint against the Managing Director, Manager and others before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom alleging that the four accused committed offence under Section 12(6) read with Section 39 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) punishable under Section 63 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Accused 2 to 4 filed Crl.M.C.3540/2005 to quash the Wpc 20144/08 2 proceedings as against them contending that ingredients of the offence are not attracted. By Ext.P2 judgment this Court quashed the proceedings against accused 2 to 4 holding that as there is no allegation in the complaint that packet of Glucon-D did not contain the declared quantity, namely 500+50 gms. and so the complaint will not lie. First accused Managing Director was not a party to Crl.M.C.3540/2005. Subsequently, when coercive steps are taken against the first accused, petitioner complainant filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari quashing all proceedings in S.T.1731/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom contending that in view of Ext.P2 judgment proceedings against the first accused also will not lie. Wpc 20144/08 3 2. When the writ petition was admitted on 4/7/2008, a direction was given to the Government Pleader to explain why benefit of Ext.P2 judgment should not be extended to the first accused Managing Director of the petitioner company. As per order dated 14/7/2008 statement was directed to be filed within one month. No statement was filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader were heard. 4. Ext.P1 complaint taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate establishes that the only allegation against the accused, including the first accused, is that commodity Glucon- D 500 + 50 gm. was not packed in accordance with Rule 12(6) of the Rules and therefore, there is violation of Section 39 of the Act Wpc 20144/08 4 punishable under Section 63. 5. Rule 12(6) of the Rules provides that declaration of quantity shall not contain any word or expression which tends to create an exaggagerated, misleading or inadequate impression as to the quantity of the commodity contained in the package. This court under Ext.P2 judgment found that package shows that it contained 500 gms. of Glucon-D + 50 gm. Free. There is no exaggaration, misleading or inadequate claim regarding the quantity of the commodity contained in the packet. It was therefore found that no offence was committed. Ext.P2 judgment has become final. The benefit available under Ext.P2 judgment should necessarily be available to the first accused also. Hence continuation of the proceedings as against the first accused is only an abuse of Wpc 20144/08 5 process of the Court. Petition is allowed. S.T.1731/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom against first accused is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.