HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.5667 AND 6366 OF 2008 Date:31-03-2011 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5667 OF 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Enterprises. --- Petitioner/ A-3. And The State of A. P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad And another. --- Respondents/ Complainant. CRIMINAL PETITION No.6366 OF 2008 Between: M/s. ITC Limited and another. --- Petitioners/ A-1 and A-2. And The State of A. P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And another. --- Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.5667 AND 6366 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: Both of these petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C. No.437 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 2. Since both these petitions have been arisen out of the same Calendar Case and that the issue involved in these petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief facts, which lead to the filing of these petitions, are as follows : The petitioners in both the petitions are A-1 to A-3 in the Calendar Case whereas the second of them is a branch office of it. On 12-02-2008 at about 04-30 p.m., the Inspector, Legal Meteorology, Nuzvid, Krishna District i.e., the second Respondent/complainant, along with his two subordinates, inspected the trading premises of the petitioner and seized a Corrugated Fiber Container (“CFC’ in short) containing four wholesale packages/bottles/jars of candyman sugar boiled confectionary modified toffees therein, marketed by A-1 company, under a panchanama/seizure report bearing No.296/PC/08, dated 12-02-2008 which was attested by two subordinates on the ground that the said packages were not containing name and address of concerned manufacturer and packer in accordance with Rule 29 (a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 (for brevity ‘PC Rules, 1977’) and Section 39 (1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for brevity “SW & M Act’), and therefore, complaint was filed for punishing the petitioners/A- 1 to A-3 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class magistrate, Nuzvid, after observing necessary formalities. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the second respondent issued notice No.296/PC/08, dated 18-02-2008 to A-1 as well as to A-2 and A-3 in the matter for which a suitable reply was given by A-2 claiming that it was a CFC containing four wholesale packages/bottles/jars of candyman sugar meant for protecting the wholesale packages during transportation to insist upon noting the details thereupon and in fact those requirements were observed as per law so far as the wholesale packages are concerned and therefore, filing of the complaint against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 is not tenable and accordingly the proceedings in the Calendar Case may be quashed. To fortify the contentions he has placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. Union of India and others Vs. India Tobacco Company Limited[1]. 2. ITC Limited Vs. Inspector, Legal Metrology, Sattenapalli and another[2]. 3. RTC Logistics Private Limited and two others Vs. Inspector, Legal Metrology, Sattenapalli and another[3]. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State has contended that it is only a wholesale packet and hence should have been noted on it also the relevant details. 6. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether it is only CFC containing wholesale packets and as such there is no need to note all the relevant details thereupon and whether filing the charge sheet against them is not proper and accordingly the proceedings are to be quashed taking recourse under section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Point No.1: The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to a copy of the panchanama/seizure report vide proceedings No.296/PC/07-08, dated 12-02-2008 and also a copy of Invoice submitted by A-3 along with typed copy in order to substantiate that it is CFC and not wholesale packets and he has also drawn the attention of this Court to a copy of notice, dated 01-03-2008 along with typed copy issued by the second respondent in this context. 8. The panchanama dated 12-02-2008 provides found “1. Candyman wholesale package product (one) Sugar boiled (ITC) confectionary modified toffees Net wt. 15.2 Kgs contents 3.8 Kg x 4 does not containing manufacturers full address”. Further, the copy of the notice dated 01-03-2008 provides found “1. A wholesale package of candyman product : Sugar boiled confectionary modified toffees Batch No. PEF 120/08 50 Ps. Eclairs Net wt: 15.2 KGs contents 3.8 Kgs x 4 whole sale packets, 2. The name and address of the manufacturer or where the manufacturer is not given.” Further, there is a copy of notice, dated 18-02-2008 issued by the second respondent calling the petitioners for compounding the offence. Further, there is a copy of reply given by A-2 to the effect that there was only one CFC having a net weight of 15.2 Kgs containing four wholesale packets of the product and as such there was no need to note necessary details on the CFC and hence, no offence was committed by the accused. There is also a copy of letter addressed by A-3 to the 2nd respondent with a plea that there was only one CFC and there was no wholesale packet weighting 15.2 Kgs of the product. 9. In none of the documents filed by the complainant there is specific admission that it is only C.F.C. and whereas it is mentioned that it is a wholesale package containing 15.2 KGs of the product in question. 10. In order to clarify it, the wholesale package has been called for and verified. No dispute is raised about the package shown to me. It is only a corrugated card board container of 4 wholesale packages of the product each weighing 3.8 Kgs x 4. When there is no dispute accordingly it is to be taken. It falsifies the claim of the respondent apparently that it is only a wholesale package. Further, when admittedly now it is only a container of the 4 wholesale packages and it by itself is not a wholesale package, the claim of the complainant goes. 11. By virtue of Rule 29 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 “Every wholesale package shall bar thereon a legible, definite, plain and conspicuous declaration as to – (a) the name and address of the manufacturer or where the manufacturer is not the packer, of the packer ; (b) the identity of the commodity contained in the package; and (c) the total number of retail packages contained in such wholesale package or the net quantity in terms of standard units of weight, measure or number of the commodity contained in whole sale package [provided that nothing in this rule shall apply in relation to a wholesale package if a declaration, similar to the declarations specified in this rule, is required to be made on such wholesale packages by or under any other law for the time being in force.] 12. Rule 2 (x) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 defines : (x) “Wholesale package” means a package containing – (i) a number of retail packages, where such first mentioned package is intended for sale, distribution or delivery to an intermediary and is not intended for sale direct to a single consumer (or) (ii) a commodity sold to an intermediary in bulk to enable such intermediary to sell, distribute or deliver such commodity to the consumer in smaller quantities (or) (iii) packages containing ten or more than ten retail packages provided that the retail packages are labeled as required under the rules. 13. In the decision cited 1st supra under similar circumstances with reference to relevant facts it was held : “The corrugated fiberboard containers can be regarded as secondary packing. These are not necessary for selling the cigarettes in the wholesale market at the factory gate. These are employed only for the purpose of avoiding damage or injury during transit. It is perfectly conceivable that the wholesale dealer who takes delivery may have his depot at a very short distance only from the factory gate or may have such transport arrangements available that damage or injury to the cigarettes can be avoided.” 14. This Court in Criminal Petition No.1310 of 2007 in between ITC Limited Vs. Inspector, Legal Mestrology, Sattenapalli and another observed : “The “wholesale packages” referred to in the complaint as a corrugated fibre board container (CFC) intended for the safe storage and transportation of wholesale packages of cigarettes placed within it. All the declarations required in terms of Rule 6 of the PC Rules are printed in retail packages. All the declarations required to be put in the wholesale packages in terms of Rule 29 of the PC Rules are printed on the said cartons. Therefore, the petitioner did not violate any of the provisions of the PC Rules.” 15. Similar observations were made by this Court also in Criminal Petition No.1365 of 2007 between RTC Logistics Private Limited and two others Vs. Inspector, Legal Metrology, Sattenapalli and another. The observations made in those decisions hold good to the facts and circumstances of this case. For the foregoing reasons, the entire proceedings in C.C. No.437 of 2008 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, Krishna District, are hereby quashed in favour of the Petitioners/A-1 to A-3 allowing the Criminal Petitions. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 31-03-2011. Dsh. [1] (1985) 4 SCC 370 [2] Crl.P.1310/2007 APHC (Unreported) [3] Crl.P.1365/2007 APHC (Unreported)