BUSH BOAKE ALLEN (INDIA) LTD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question arising in this case turns upon the interpretation of rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, which are framed under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (Central Act 60 of 1976). The petitioner is a company manufacturing permitted food -colour preparations having its sole agents in different places in the country. One Maddala Someswara Rao of Messrs Jayalakshmi Agencies, Chirala is one such agents of the company. The accused supplied food -colour preparations in packages and in packed -form to the above said agent Sri Someswara Rao of Chirala. On 7 -11 -1983 the Senior Inspector of Weights and Measures inspected the premises of Messrs. Jayalakshmi Agencies, Chirala, Checked -up the packages exposed for sale, which package were received from the accused from Madras. In that inspection the said Inspector checked up Permicol (Regd.) Coal Tar Food Colour preparation Rose Pink Powder IR 8955 net 125 grams, in sealed packages. He found that the packages did not bear the date of packing and the sale -price on the package as required under rule 6(1)(d) and 6(1)(f) of the said Weights and Measures Rules. In exercises of his power under Section 29 of the said Weights & Measures Act read with the relevant notification dt. 30 -9 -78, the Inspector seized one such package from the said Someswar Rao of Chirala under a panchanama. Thereafter, he issued a notice dt. 11 -11 -83 to the accused to show cause why they should not be prosecuted. The accused sent a reply seeking protection under rule 34, which reads as follows: - -

(2.) HOWEVER , the above contention seeking protection under rule 34 was rejected. Thereafter, necessary permission of the Director of Weights and Measures. New Delhi, was obtained on 11 -5 -1984. The complaint was filed by the Asst. Controller of Weights and Measures, Nellore, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chirala, contending that the accused contravened rules 4, 6(1)(d) and 6(1)(f) and was therefore punishable under rule 39(1) of the said Rules and section 29 of the Act.

(3.) A reading of the prosecution notice as well as the complaint now filed before the learned Magistrate reveal that the contention of the complaint is not that the package does not contain the label specifying that the package is meant for the exclusive use of any industry as raw -material. On the other hand, the complaint is that the contents of the package are not raw material, but are being passed off as raw material in the relevant industry.