IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.18967, 18976, 19326 and 19327 of 2002 WRIT PETITION NO : 18967 of 2002 Between: M/s Bharati Soap Works ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Controller of Legal Metrology 2. The Inspector of Legal Metrology ...RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO : 18976 of 2002 Between: M/s. Bharati Soap Works, 11/26, Gorantal, Guntur, Rep.by its Properietor A.Manickavel, S/o. Arunachalam, R/o. Nallacheruvu, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Controller of Metrology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 209, P.W.D. Buildings, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of Legal Metrology, ( Weght & Measures ) Guntakal --- 515 801, Ananthapur District. ..RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO : 19326 of 2002 Between: M/s Bharati Soap Works, Rep. by its Propritor A. Manickavel, S/o Arunacheruvu 1/26, Gorantla, Guntur District, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Controller of Legal Metrology, Government of Andhra Pradesh 209, P.W.D. Buildings, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector, Legal Metrology, Azad Road, Madhira - 507 203 Khammam District. ..RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO : 19327 of 2002 Between: M/s Bharati Soap Works, rep. by its Propritor A. Manickavel S/o Arunachalam 11/26, Gorantla Guntur, R/o Nallacheruvu, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Controller of Legal Metrology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 209, P.W.D. Buildings, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of Legal Metrology, (Weight & Measures), Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.POSANI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPLIES The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is common, they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioner, which is common in all these writ petitions, is involved in manufacture and sale of detergent cake. The short ground on which the impugned notices were issued, whereby prosecution is launched against the petitioner, is that the weight of the commodity being oﬀered for sale by the petitioner does not conform to the weight prescribed in Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (for short “the Rules”). Rule 5 of the Rules and Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule are reproduced herein below- “Rule 5. Speciﬁc commodities to be packed and sold only in standard packages.- On and from the commencement of these rules, 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: PROVIDED THAT the Central Government may, if it is satisﬁed that for any technical or mechanical reason it is not possible to pre-pack any commodity in the standard quantities speciﬁed in the Third Schedule, authorize the pre-packing of such commodities in such quantities as it may specify: PROVIDED FURTHER that nothing in this rule shall disallow any person from packing any commodity speciﬁed against Serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 18 and 18-A in column 2 of the Third Schedule in any quantity beyond the maximum standard of quantity speciﬁed in column 3 of that schedule. Serial No.17(b): Non-soapy detergent cakes/bar - 50g, 75g, 100g, 125g, 150g, 200g, 250g, 300g and thereafter in multiples of 100g.” A perusal of the wrapper of the package, a Xerox copy of which is ﬁled by the petitioner and not disputed by the learned Government Pleader, shows that it is written thereon as under: “net wt.when packed 250g +30 g extra Maximum retail price Rs.5.50 (inclusive of all taxes)” Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule, which is extracted above, prescribes that the non-soapy detergent cakes/bar shall be sold with the following weight. “50g, 75g, 100g, 125g, 150g, 200g, 250g, 300g and thereafter in multiples of 100g.” The only allegation, which purported to constitute the violation of the Rules and commission of the oﬀence by the petitioner, is that the total weight of the cake as indicated on the package is 280 gms, which does not conform to the prescribed weight. A careful analysis of Rule 5 of the Rules indicates that the prescribed weight of the commodity for sale should conform to the prescribed weight in Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule of the Rules. In the instant cases, what is oﬀered for sale admittedly conforms to the prescribed weight. In addition to the quantity oﬀered for sale, the petitioner oﬀered additional quantity to the customers for being given free of cost. In my considered view, the additional weight shall not be reckoned for the purpose of examining whether the petitioner violated the provisions of Rule 5 read with the Third Schedule of the Rules. I am fortiﬁed in this view of mine by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Santanu S/o Jagatbandhu Sinha v. The State of Maharashtra[1], wherein the Bombay High Court held as under: “Thus the commodity is to be packed in standard quantity as mentioned in Schedule III and the complaint discloses that green detergent cakes was not packed in standard quantity. On the pack the quantity is mentioned as 250 gms+25 gms free. This it is contended is in breach of Rule 5. Entry No.17 in Schedule III is the relevant entry for detergent cake. The detergent cake can be packed in quantity of 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 200, 250 and 300 gms. Now in this case the pack is of 250 gms and 25 gms extra is free. It would be once again necessary to look into Rule 5. Rule 5 if read carefully would make it clear that any commodity for sale must be oﬀered in standard pack. Here what is oﬀered for sale is quantity of 250 gms. Thus the quantity oﬀered for sale and for which price is charged is 250 gms only. It is made clear on the pack that 25 gms is oﬀered free. Hence extra 25 gms is not oﬀered for sale at all. Further the retail price of the quantity oﬀered for sale is also mentioned on the pack. The Rule to my mind required that the quantity oﬀered for the sale should be according to Entry No.17. In the present case the quantity oﬀered for sale is 250 gms which is in compliance with Entry No.17. 25 gms oﬀered free is to be ignored for all purposes as it is not for sale. Hence, even if the complaint is read as it is, it does not disclose an offence.” The law is well settled that the penal provisions should be strictly construed. Rule 5 of the Rules has given particular emphasis to the word “for sale”. Since, in the instant cases, what is oﬀered for sale admittedly conforms to the prescribed weight, I am of the view that on the admitted facts no oﬀence is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned notices are quashed. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 11th November, 2008 vrn [1] Criminal Application Nos.781 and 783 of 2007