Asian Paints (India) Ltd vs Inspector Of Legal Metrology on 24 October, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
CRI WP 409.2003
Asian Paints (India) Limited, a company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 6A, Shantinagar,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055.
Versus
Inspector of Legal Metrology,
Office of the Inspector of Legal Metrology,
Dhule-2nd Section, House No. 7,
Subhash Chowk,
Near Mari Mata Temple,
Dhule, Maharashtra.
By of this Writ Petition, the petitioner Company seeks quashing of the Criminal complaint bearing STCC No.322 of 1999 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule.
Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-
The Inspector of Legal Metrology who is responsible for administration of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 seized certain two packs of WOODORITE primer of one litre each on the ground that, packages contained an extra label containing price, month and year of packing,
contending therein that, Maximum Retail Price and months and year of packing were marked on a sticker and the same constitutes an offence under section 33 of the Act and punishable under section 51 and 56 of the Act.
In regard to the month and year of packing as well as retail sale price, it would not be possible for the petitioner to preprint the same in advance. There are several varieties and shades of the paints, which will be virtually impossible to preprint the month and year of manufacturer/packing as the actual manufacture would depend on several factors which vary from time to time depending on market conditions. The petitioner cannot afford to preprint tins/drums on a uniform basis with month and year of manufacture/packing and discarding them in the event of not being able to use them later on. As regards to the retail sale price, the law requires to state the maximum retail price inclusive of all taxes since the petitioner has an all India market, it will have to take a note of various taxes and levies imposed in different states prior to determining the maximum retail price. Thus, the maximum retail price will have to be determined at the time of packing. It is for these reasons the manufacture, year of the manufacture and maximum retail price cannot be preprinted.
The learned counsel submits that, in terms of the then Rule 8(1), subject to Rule 8 (2) of the Rules of 1977, prior to 1999 amendment, every declaration required to be made under the Rules shall, wherever practicable, appear on the Principal Display panel and shall ordinarily be parallel to the base on which the package is intended by its manufacture to rest. In terms of Rule 8 (2) (ii), prior to the 1999 amendment, in case of a container made of any metal, glass, plastic or foil, the month and the year in which the commodity contained in such container was manufactured or prepacked, may be indicated either on the top or on the bottom of such container. It is therefore, clear that it is not mandatory that all declarations should be shown on the label.
Learned counsel submits that, keeping in mind the dictionary meanings to the words especially ‘label’, ‘securely’ and ‘affix’, the impugned action of the respondent- inspector in issuing the notice dated 16.11.1998 and thereafter launching of the prosecution vide STC No.322/1999 is wholly improper, illegal and unreasonable.
Prima facie there appears to be some difference between the word “label” and “sticker”. If a paper sticker used for such CRI WP 409.2003 declaration as aforesaid, it cannot be prima facie said that such declaration is made on a label securely affixed on a package. A paper sticker affixed with the help of gum or adhesive cannot be said to be firmly affixed. It is likely to fall/broken. It is not reliable. Prima facie I find substance in the allegations made in the complaint and case is made out for trial in accordance with law. The legislature at their wisdom considered the same and, thus Rule 4 and 6 of the Rules, 1977 provides such declarations are to be made on every package or on a label securely affixed thereto. In the present case, prima facie, it appears that, there is no compliance of the Rule 4 and 6 of the Rules 1977.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in the writ petition. Hence, following order.
O R D E R
I. Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
II. Rule discharged.
( V. K. JADHAV )
JUDGE