INDUS VIDEOTRONICS Vs. DIGAMBAR M BADODKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of six petitions is filed for quashing the prosecutions lodged against the petitioners under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Rules made thereunder in the Metropolitan Magistrates Courts in Greater Mumbai. Since in all the petitions common question of law is raised in the backdrop of similar facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) OUT of the above six petition in five petitions the petitioners have been selling film video cassettes and the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 578 of 1994 has been selling toys. When the Inspectors of Legal Metrology inspected some shops they found a large number of packages of video cassettes and toys bearing the names of the petitioners which did not comply with the conditions laid down under the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act and the Rules by not giving particulars on the packages like price, month and year, size and time or length of the picture and, therefore, the video cassettes and the packages of toys were seized and the prosecutions were lodged in the Metropolitan Magistrates Courts in Mumbai. After the complaints were filed under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Rules made thereunder, process was issued against the petitioners. By these petition the petitioners seek to challenge the process issued against them in the Metropolitan Magistrates Courts, Mumbai. The above prosecutions have been lodged under section 33 (1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and Rule 6 (1) (c), (d) and (f) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 punishable under section 51 (1) of the aforesaid Act of 1985.

(3.) MR. Thakore, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the aforesaid provisions are not applicable as the petitioners are not manufactures or the producers of the said cassettes. He argues that blank cassettes are manufactured by one company and the film is produced by the producer of the film and what the petitioners have done is only to transmit the film produced by the producer of the film on blank cassette manufactured by the manufacturer of the blank video cassette and, therefore, bringing together of blank video cassette and a film by the petitioners would not amount to manufacture or production by the petitioner and, therefore, the provisions of the Act would not be attracted and no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. He tried to show the meanings of the words "manufacture" and "produce" from the dictionaries and the definitions and the said words from other Acts and contended that the role played by these petitioners in respect of these video cassettes does not amount to either manufacture or production to attract the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder. According to him these petitioners have obtained licence any copyright from the producers of the film under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 which is mentioned on those cassettes and, therefore, these petitioners are not legally bound to give or mention the particulars of the price, size, duration and the month and year of the manufacture on the video cassettes. He further contended that the provisions of the above Act are applicable in case they are sold to consumers which means that the cassette must be meant to be consumed by the borrower. Citing the meaning of the word "consume" he contended that these cassettes were not capable of destruction or becoming non-existent when they are purchased by the purchasers but they are used only for the purpose of seeing and, therefore, these items like video cassettes and toys are not consumable items. He further argued that the use of the word make appearing in Clause (h) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1977 has to be read in the context of the other two words used viz. manufacture and produce and cannot be read in isolation to mean other than manufacture or production. I am not impressed by the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Thakore on behalf of the petitioners.