IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2031 of 2007() ------------------------- ST.101/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND,3RD & 4TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. BATA INDIA LIMITED, 6A, S.N.BANERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 013. 2. TUHIN CHATTERJEE, SR.MANAGER-LEGAL, M/S.BATA INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA-700 013. 3. DEPOT MANAGER, BATA INDIA LIMITED, COURT CROSS ROAD, CALICUT-673 032. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------- 1. INSPECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY, CIRCLE-1, TIRUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jma K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.M.C. No.2031 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed under section 482 CrPC to quash Annexure D complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioners, alleging that an article of footwear manufactured and sold by first petitioner-company through the distributors and dealers did not contain the declaration with regard to the maximum retail price as envisaged under Rule 6 (1)(b) of the Standard of Weighs and Measures (Package Commodities) Rule 1977. The second and third petitioners are Senior Manager and Depot Manager of the Company. 2. The main contention raised in this petition is that the footwear is not a package commodity. It is only if the footwear is a package commodity, the alleged offence can be said to have been committed. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2008(3) KLT 694 UNION OF INDIA VS. GODREJ CRL.M.C. No.2031 OF 2007 : 2 : GE APPLIANCES LTD., and argued that the footwear is a package commodity, as held by this Court in the said decision. It was submitted that certain paragraphs are deleted while reporting the judgment. But in OP No.27234/99 which relates to the footwear, relying upon the principle laid down in above said decision, the said OP was also dismissed. In the light of the above judgment, it is submitted that the petitioners' contentions will not be sustainable. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the decision can be distinguished on the facts. According to him, before a customer purchases footwear, he tries them and then only, purchase the article. For other reasons also, the footwear can be treated as a package commodity and no offence will lie, it is argued. 4. On hearing both sides, I find that I need not go into the merits of the case, since the issue to be resolved in this case involves mixed questions of facts and law. So, a conclusion can be made only on the basis of evidence to be CRL.M.C. No.2031 OF 2007 : 3 : adduced. On hearing both sides and going through the judgment referred to by learned Public Prosecutor, I do not find any ground to quash the complaint, on the ground urged. If the petitioner can distinguish the decision on facts, he may do so, at the appropriate stage. This petition is dismissed. Sd/- ( K. HEMA, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge