HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6933 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Leamak Healthcare Private Limited. He was arrayed as A-1 in C.C.No. 23 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 2. A-1 allegedly committed the offence u/Sec.63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 (‘the Act,’ for Short) for contravening the provisions of Rule 23(1) R/w. Rule 2(r) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (P.C.) Rules, 1977 (‘the Rules’ for short). The petitioner is A-1 in the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. He seeks for quashing of the case against him. 3. The case which led to filing of the present case are : i) The petitioner/A1 is the manufacturer of CANDYMAN LICKS Butter Scotch in the packaged form within the meaning of Sec.2(b) of the Act. A-1 resides at Ahmedabad. He sells the product at Hyderabad. A- 1 consequently has been indulging in Trade or commerce as defined under Sec.2(m) of the Act. The Rules are applicable to the case of the petitioner and the manufactured product of the petitioner. ii) The 2nd respondent inspected the premises of A-2 on 4.5.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. A-3 was transacting business on behalf of A-2 at the premises of A-2. The product of A-1 was under display and under sale by A-3. The 2nd respondent found violations of the product of A-1 under Rule 2(r) of the Rules. Consequently, the 2nd respondent seized five packets of the product of A-1 which might be offered for sale seizing the same under a mediator’s report. Later the charge sheet was laid. 4. Everyone of the allegations made by A-2 was accepted by A-1. That the 2nd respondent inspected the premises of the 2nd accused, that 2nd accused was transacting business and that the 2nd respondent seized five packets from the shop are all undisputed facts. 5. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel representing A-1 however, contended that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence under Section 63 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has not violated Rule 2(r) of the Rules. He further contended that in view of Rule 34(b) of the Rules, the disputed product is exempt from the purview of the Rules. Thus, the learned senior counsel raised two fold attack viz., i) there was no violation of the Rules by any of the accused muchless A-1 and that ii) the very Rules do not apply to the present facts of the case. 6. I may at the outset examine the contention of the learned senior counsel regarding the first of his contentions. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the packages containing several candys at a net weight of 330 gms with a batch number was circulated for sale. The packet did not contain endorsement about the “Maximum Retail Price “ and “M.R.P.” The packet on the other hand, contained an endorsement that the recommenced price was Rs.50/-. Considering that this is a violation of Rule 2(r) of the Rules punishable u/Sec.63 of the Act, the 2nd respondent laid complaint against A-1, A-2 and others. 7. The learned Senior Counsel produced a packet similar to the one seized by the 2nd respondent. Indeedd the packet produced before me was manufactured in January, 2011, whereas the seized stock was manufactured in the month of March, 2006. Learned Senior Counsel for A-1 submitted that the packet produced before me and the packets seized by the 2nd respondent were similar. The packet produced before me consists an endorsement that the recognized price was Rs.57.50. The packet also disclosed that it contained rich creamy caramel candy. The number of pieces that are packed however, has not been indicated on the packet produced before me. There is no dispute that the packet produced by the learned Senior Counsel before me and the samples seized by the 2nd respondent were identical barring for the prices and the year of manufacturing and indeed the batch number. 8. The packet contained various candys. Each of the candies found in the packet was wrapped and sealed. The wrapper of each of the candy pieces contained recital that the M.R.P. price was Rs.0.50 ps. It is the case of the learned Senior Counsel that Sec.2(r) relating to retail sale price applies to the commodity sold in packed form and that the commodity in the present case is the loose candys that are found in the packet. 9. He further contended that the packets seized from A-3 do not fall within the meaning of the commodity in the packed form. The learned senior counsel took me through Rule 2(p) of the Rules defining the retail package. A retail package was defined to be a package which is intended for the retail sale to the consumer for the purpose of consumption of the commodity. Rule 2(r) deals with the retail sale piece of such retail package. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the commodity in the present case is the candy pieces found in the packet and not the packet itself, that the packet in which the candys are distributed to the dealer are not for the consumption and the ultimate consumption is the pieces of the candy found in the packet. Admittedly, the individual pieces of candy found in the packet are not packed in violation of Rule 2(r) of the Rules as those pieces indeed contained recital that the Maximum Retail Price of the piece was Rs.0.50 ps. Where it is the case of the A-1 that what is to be consumed by the consumer is the individual candy pieces and where the individual candy pieces did not offend Rule 2(r) of the Rules, I have no hesitation to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel for A-1 that A-1 did not violate the provisions of Rule 2 (p) and Rule 2(r) of the Rules to become punishable u/sec.63 of the Act. 10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to two similar cases. The Branch Manager of ITC Limited filed Crl.P.No.1393 of 2007 in this Court when he was arrayed as A-3 in STC No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Anakapally. Similar were the facts in that case as in the present case, where the packets of candyman fruitee fun manufactured by the ITC Limited were seized by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Anakapally. The High Court in that case held that A-3 therein did not violate Rule 2(r) of the Rules as the individual pieces in the main packet contained the recitals as contemplated by Rule 2(r) of the Rules. 11. As many as four retail dealers questioned the action by the Inspector of Legal Metrology through Crl.P.No.190 of 2008 relying upon the Judgment in Crl.P.No.1393 of 2007. The High Court quashed in the case against the four petitioners, who laid criminal petition No.190 of 2008. The present case stands on the exact and identical footing as in the case of Crl.P.No.1393 of 2007. The case of the 2nd respondent against the 1st accused deserves to be quashed, in view of the precedent of this Court as well as in view of t1he facts that the A-1 has not violated Rule 2(r) of the Rules. Thus, the case against A-1 is liable to be quashed. 12. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that the Rules themselves do not operate if the net weight of the commodity is less than 10 gms, as contemplated by Rule 34(a) of the Rules. The net weight of each of the candy pieces in the present case is about 3 gms. Assuming that the A-3 violated Rule 2(r) of the Rules, the accused would be exempted from prosecution in view of Rule 34 of the Rules. At any rate, on merits, the petitioner/A-1 established that the commodity seized was not manufactured and distributed in violation of Rule 2(r) of the Rules. 13. Consequently, A-1 is prima-facie not punishable u/Sec. 63 of the Act. The case against the accused consequently is liable to be quashed. This petition is accordingly allowed. The proceedings against A-1 in CC No.23 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, stand quashed. __________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Dt. 31-03-2011 Mjl/*