CADBURY INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused 1 to 9 and 11 in S.T 1601/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. Petitioners challenge Annexure M complaint filed by the second respondent in this proceeding, who is the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology (Flying Squad) Malappuram.

(2.) BRIEF allegations in the complaint are as follows. During the course of inspection by the second respondent on 10.09.2009 at the trade premises of M/s Mahas Bakery and Ice Cream Parlor, Munduparambu, Malappuram, it was detected that the packages containing 'Cadbury Dairy Milk Eclairs' exhibited and kept for sale were deficient in terms of the compliance of provisions of The Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (in short the 1976 Act) and Rules made thereunder and also The Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1985 (in short the 1985 Act) and the Rules. It is specifically alleged that on the packages the declaration of the name, address, telephone number of the person who can be, or the office which can be contacted in case of consumer complaints were not in conformity with the provisions of the Rules 4, 6 (1), 6 (1 -A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (In short the Rules 1977) and the month and year in which the commodity was manufactured or pre -packed was not indicated as per Rule 6(1)(d) of the said Rules, 1977 thereby violated rules of Section 33 , 62 of the Act of 1985 r/w Section 39 and 74 of the Act of 1976.

(3.) HEARD Sri. V.B Unni Raj learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor Sri. Justin Jacob. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution is totally misconceived. According to him there is no legally sustainable reason to prosecute the accused. From the allegations, it can be seen that the accused persons are said to have violated certain provisions in the 1976 Act and the Rules made thereunder. Rule 4 of the Rules 1977 deals with regulations for pre -packing and sale etc. of commodities in package form. Rules 6 speaks about the declaration to be made on every package. The violation alleged to have been committed by the accused is in respect of Rule 6 (1) (d) which reads as follows: