LAWS(KER)-2022-12-180

PARLE AGRO PVT.LTD. Vs. SENIOR INSPECTOR

Decided On December 20, 2022
Parle Agro Pvt.Ltd. Appellant
V/S
SENIOR INSPECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The manufacturer and the Directors of the fruit-based beverage popularly known as 'FROOTI' are facing prosecution for alleged violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act') and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short 'the Rules'). Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'), challenging the complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology.

(2.) On 3/3/2014, the first respondent purchased a 1.5- litre pre-packed plastic bottled fruit-based beverage called 'FROOTI'. On the next day, he issued a notice to the manufacturer, alleging that the product manufactured by them violated the provisions of rule 8(2) as well as rule 31(2) of the Rules. The reason alleged was that as a bottle not intended to be refilled, the product purchased by him did not contain the retail sale price printed on the 'principal display panel' and also that the font size of the declaration of MRP was not the same as that of the net quantity declaration and hence punishable under sec. 36(1) of the Act.

(3.) Immediately, a reply notice was issued on behalf of the petitioners to the first respondent, contending that the product satisfied the requirements of the Act and the Rules, and hence there was no violation. However, disregarding the reply notice, the first respondent filed a complaint on 18/8/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging violation of Rules 4, 6, 7(2), 9(1)(b), 9(3) read with rule 8(2) and 18 of the Rules, apart from sec. 18 and sec. 36(1) of the Act. Cognizance was taken as C.C No. 3240 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The manufacturer, the manufacturing unit, the Chairman and Managing Director and other Directors of the manufacturer are all arrayed as accused. The accused are seeking to quash the complaint.