STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SUBHASH ARJUNDAS KATARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principle question which arises in these appeals is as to what is the true scope and correct purport of the expression "commodity in packaged form" under Section 2(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act). In Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 2010, the specific question is whether the sun glasses can be considered "pre-packed commodity" under Rule 2(l) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (in short 'the Rules). In the connected appeals, the product includes Titan watches, fixed wireless phones, sun glasses, electrical goods, home appliances, consumer electronics and Samsung Microwave Oven. The State of Maharashtra is the Appellant in all these appeals.

(2.) For convenience, let us briefly state the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 2010. According to the Respondent, he is engaged in the business of trading in sun glasses and has a counter on commission basis at Globus Stores, Bandra. On 17.10.2003, the Inspector of Legal Metrology/Appellant No. 2 herein visited the store and seized five Sun glasses belonging to the Respondent and issued a seizure memo. At the time of search, it was explained to him that the sun glasses delivered to them were in polythene bags and some in individual open able pouches. According to them, sometimes, at the time of delivery, they are put in a pouch which is normally on display for the customers to identify for the purpose of purchase. It was also explained that the package, therefore, is only a package for protection or safety of the article. The value of sun glasses whether inside the package or outside the package does not alter if the package is opened nor does it undergo a perceptive modification on the package being opened. The testing of the sunglasses by the customer is for the purpose of determining whether he should purchase the same considering various sizes, designs, colors, aesthetic value, makes and companies and after trying and ascertaining the suitability, quality etc.

(3.) It is the grievance of the Respondent that in spite of proper explanation, the Inspector/Appellant No. 2 seized the sun glasses for allegedly not declaring name and address of the manufacturer/month and year of manufacturing which is in violation of provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is the claim of the Respondent that by force they were compelled to write a letter to the authorities for compounding the offence and directing them to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compounding fee by order dated 30.10.2003.