HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court praying that the entire proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 vide notice dated 09.02.2009 culminating in the criminal prosecution in C.C. No. 14078/2009 on the file of the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, be quashed. The petitioner is also assailing the communication at Annexure-H and is seeking consideration of the appeal at Annexure-D. Further prayers in the petition in support of the earlier prayers are also made therein. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the petition papers.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner is the manufacturer of several products referred to in the petition. In respect of the soaps being manufactured by the petitioner, a complaint as at Annexure-F was filed under Section 72 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short the 'Act'). By the said complaint, it was alleged that the label on the packages though had been affixed did not make the declaration with regard to the name and address of the manufacturer and customer care number. Pursuant to the said complaint filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance by the order dated 29.06.2009. The petitioner is therefore aggrieved by the same. It is also necessary to refer to the fact that the petitioner had filed an appeal as at Annexure-D against the action of the respondents and the said appeal was disposed of as not maintainable.

(3.) At the outset, it is necessary to indicate that the issue relating to filing of the appeal and disposal of the same would not arise for consideration, if the issue relating to the criminal proceedings is taken into consideration and the further proceedings therein, if for any reason is held by this Court as not maintainable. In that regard, the learned senior counsel, at the outset, would point out that the very reading of the complaint would indicate that the alleged offence under Section 39 of the said Act would only invite the fine of Rs. 5,000/- and the manner in which the complaint had been filed before the Magistrate and the cognizance taken would indicate that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance after the limitation period prescribed in that regard had lapsed. It is further pointed out that the very reading of the order passed by the learned Magistrate would indicate non-application of mind. It is contended that when the cognizance is being taken, which would entail serious action, non-application of mind in itself is sufficient to hold that the cognizance taken is contrary to law and the further proceedings is liable to be quashed.