THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No. 6626 of 2003 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the case in STC No. 25 of 2003, which is pending trial on the file of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet, Kadapa District as arbitrary illegal and without jurisdiction. The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in the business of manufacture and/or marketing throughout India and abroad the consumer goods like toilet soaps and beverages etc. The petitioner and other similar companies have introduced from time to time consumer beneficial schemes. One such was multi-piece package of Fair and Lovely soap consisting of 3 cakes of 75 gms. each, wherein the consumer pays for two soaps and saves Rs.9/-. While so, the respondent registered a case against the petitioner and others alleging that by marketing the said multi-piece package, the petitioner has contravened Sec.39 and S.No.17(c) of the III Schedule to the said Rules and violated the net quantity. Further, by notice dated 20.7.2002, the respondent informed the petitioner that before launching criminal case against it, it may, if so desired, compound the offence by paying the fine. As the very seizure and the proposed action were wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 16816 of 2002 impugning the said notice dated 20.7.2002. The said writ petition was admitted by this Court on 4.9.2002 and interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice was granted. It is the further case of the petitioner that it has introduced a similar scheme called “Sandal Breeze – Buy 2 get 1 free” multi-piece package, which consists of 3 soaps of 100 gms. each and conforms to the provisions of both the Act and the Rules. It was also disclosed on the multi-piece package that individual units are not for sale. However, the respondent, without any just cause, has visited Gopi General Stores, a retail shop situated at Rajampet on 7.1.2002 and seized under Section 29(1)(b) of the Act the multi-piece package of “Sandal Breeze Buy 2 get 1 free” and filed a complaint on 18.6.2002 in the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet against the petitioner and 3 others. The said complaint was returned on 18.10.2002 directing the complainant to address A-1 (Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited) and A-2 (Hindustan Level Limited) for the names of their representatives. The complaint was resubmitted on 17.2.2003 stating that Sri M.S. Banga, Chairman and Managing Director represents A-2, whereas, the Controller of Legal Metrology, Punjab was addressed and his reply was awaited for A-1. However, instead of rejecting the complaint, the Court below has mechanically taken cognizance of the same on 7.3.2003 and registered it as STC No. 25 of 2003 and issued notice dated 13.3.2003 directing the accused to appear either in person or through advocate on 22.4.2003. The allegations leveled in the complaint are as follows: i) The declaration of net quantity does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 6(1)(c) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977. ii) The total net weight of the package has not been declared on the packages as required under Rule 2(i) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977. iii) The declaration of net quantity of the package is not in compliance of Rule 2(n) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977. iv) The declaration of net quantity made on the package as (3x100g) is not definite as required under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977. Hence, the accused are liable to be punished as follows: 1. A-1 for contravention of Sec.39 punishable under Section 63 of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976. 2. A-2 for contravention of Sec.39 punishable under Section 63 of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976. 3. A-3 for contravention of Sec. 39 and Rule 23(1) punishable under Section 63 of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976. 4. A-4 for contravention of Sec. 39 and Rule 23(1) punishable under Section 63 of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976. The petitioner, arrayed as A-2 in the complaint, submits that both the complaint as well as STC are illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ petition. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent. Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings whereby the respondent concluded that the petitioner contravened the provisions of Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 4 of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 read with Rule 6(1)(c), 2(n), 2(j) and Rule 9(1) and 23(1) of the said Rules and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the plain language of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner has not violated any of the statutory provisions and the impugned proceeding constitutes sheer abuse of process of law. Opposing the said contentions, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies strenuously contended that the petitioner violated the standards of weights prescribed in Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule read with Rule 5 of the Rules. He further submitted that the impugned proceeding is only registration of a criminal case and that it is entitled to defend itself in the criminal case. I have given serious thought to the respective submissions of the learned counsel. A perusal of the impugned proceeding shows that the main thrust of the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner marketed the packages of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited), namely, “Sandal Breeze – Buy 2 get 1 free” in violation of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 5 read with Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules. The petitioner pleaded that it has complied with the requirements of all the relevant provisions including Rule 5 read with Third Schedule to the Rules. In order to resolve this dispute, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 39 of the Act prohibits a person from making, manufacturing, packing, selling or causing to be packed or sold etc., any commodity in packaged form to which Chapter IV applies unless such package bears thereon or on a label securely attached thereto a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration, made in the prescribed manner, of (i) the identity of the commodity in the package; (ii) the net quantity, in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity in the package; (iii) where the commodity is packaged or sold by number, the accurate number of the commodity contained in the package; (iv) the unit sale price of the commodity in the package; and (v) the sale price of the package and various other requirements enumerated therein. To enforce the provisions of the Act, the Rules are framed. Rule 2(j) defined “multi-piece package” as a package containing two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces of the same commodities of identical quantity, intended for retail sale, either in individual pieces or the package as a whole. Rule 5 of the Rules inter alia envisages that no person shall pre-pack, or cause or permit to be pre-packed, any commodity for sale, distribution, or delivery except in such standard quantities as are specified in relation to that commodity in the Third Schedule. Rule 17(1) of the Rules provides that every multi-piece package shall bear thereon, in addition to the declaration as required to be made under any other provisions of the Rules, a declaration contained in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of the said rule. Proviso to the said rule mandates that where individual pieces contained in a multi-piece package are packaged or labelled separately and are capable of being sold separately each piece shall bear thereon a declaration as to the quantity and the retail sale price thereof. Rule 17(2) provides that if individual pieces contained in the package do not carry retail sale price, it shall carry a declaration that they are not intended for retail sale. The Third Schedule to the Rules prescribes the quantities by weight, measure or number as are specified in the corresponding entries, against the commodities. In this case, we are concerned with Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule “Non-soapy detergent cakes/bar”. It provides that they shall be packed in the following quantities. “50g, 75g, 100g, 125g, 150g, 200g, 250g, 300g and thereafter in multiples of 100g.” The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that though the individual pieces, which were three in number, sealed in a single pack conformed to the standard weight envisaged in Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules, as indicated on the pack, individual units are not for loose sale, and hence, the entire multi-piece pack should be treated as one unit and the total weight of all the three pieces taken together should conform to the standard weight prescribed in the said provision. As per the definition of “multi-piece package” as reproduced above, the multi-piece package can contain two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces of the same commodities of identical quantity, intended for retail sale, either in individual pieces or the package as a whole. There is, thus, no dispute that the commodity that is marketed by the petitioner and seized by the respondent satisfies the definition of “multi-piece package”, even though all the individual pieces are intended to be sold as a whole. It is also not in dispute that the weight of the each piece packed is 100 gms. From the weights prescribed in Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules, as extracted above, it is clear that the weight of individual piece satisfies the prescribed weight indicated in the said provision. The only question to be decided is whether the multi-piece package should further conform to the weight prescribed in the said provision as a whole or not. Rule 17 of the Rules, which is noted above, envisages that every multi-piece package shall bear thereon in addition to the declaration as required to be made under any other provisions of the Rules, a declaration of the number of individual pieces contained therein and the retail sale price of the multi-piece package. On a careful analysis of the above-mentioned facts qua the Rules, I am of the view that the petitioner satisfied the requirement of Rule 5 of the Rules and also Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules by packing the individual pieces as per the prescribed weight in addition to conforming to Rule 17 of the Rules by indicating on the multi-piece package, the number of individual pieces contained therein and also the retail sale price of the multi-piece package as a whole. While dealing with the multi-piece package, it is necessary to read the requirement of Rule 5 in conjunction with Rule 17 of the Rules and so read, the conclusion is inevitable that in the case of a multi-piece package, there is no necessity of the total weight of all the individual pieces together conforming to the weight prescribed under Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules. It will suffice, if each individual commodity contained in the multi-piece package conforms to the prescribed weight. Any other interpretation would only render the very purpose of providing for multi-piece package nugatory. My view of this derives support from the judgment of the Bombay High Court in M/s.Hindustan Lever Limited v. The Inspector of Legal Metrology, Kanhangad in Crl.MC.No.2714 of 2003(D), dated 17.03.2006. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi and another[1]. I have carefully considered the facts of the said case and I am of the view that the said judgment, which dealt with the interpretation of retail sale price in the context of imposition of excise duty, has no relevance to the facts of the case on hand. As regards the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner can defend itself in the criminal case, I see no merit in it. In the present writ petition, the petitioner virtually is seeking quashing of the proceeding and the same parameters, which apply to the quashing of a criminal proceeding either under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India apply to the case on hand. The law is well settled that the constitutional Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. interdict criminal proceedings, where the allegations taken on their face value do not disclose commission of any offence in order to prevent abuse of process of law. (See State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal[2], State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[3] and State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo[4]) On the interpretation of the provisions as above and on the admitted facts of the case, I am satisfied that no offence is made out. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in permitting the respondent to proceed with the intended prosecution. If, on the other hand, the criminal prosecution is not quashed, it would only result in subjecting the petitioner to the undue hardship of facing prosecution in a case, where the respondent failed to make out commission of any offence either by the petitioner or its dealer. On the premises as above, the writ petition is allowed and S.T.C.No. 25 of 2003, which is pending for trial on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet, Kadapa, is quashed. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 10-9-2009. MVB. [1] 2004(7) SCC 591 [2] 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 355 [3] (1982) 1 SCC 561 [4] 2005(2) scj 804