Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Samsung India For Alleged Violation Of Packaging Rules

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Samsung India under the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum found the complaint to be self-contradictory and said there is total misinterpretation of relevant provisions of the Act and Packaged Commodities Rules 2011. It said,

“This Court is of the view that the complaint does not disclose any offence. The offences indicated in the complaint are applicable to retail packages and not to wholesale packages and therefore, on meticulous examination of the allegations made in the complaint, it is clearly evident that the complaint is tainted with malafides. The allegations made in the complaint are found to be totally frivolous and vexatious. Even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted in entirety, the same does not constitute any substantive offence and prima-facie the allegations are found to be frivolous.”

As per the complaint filed by Inspector of the Department of Legal Metrology, during inspection at M/s. ABM TeleMobiles India Pvt. Ltd., a distributor of Samsung, it was found that MRP printed on one pre-packed Samsung Galaxy Tab-4 was not in conformity with Rule 4(2) of the Legal Metrology (Numeration) Rules, 2011, read with Section 6(2) and (3) of the Legal Metrology Act.

He also inspected one wholesale packaged product containing 20 individual packages which he said did not have qualifying symbol 'N' for indicating the quantity as provided under Rule 13(5)(ii) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and therefore, claimed that mere mentioning of Numeral '20' without qualifying unit 'N' amounts to violation of Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011.

A private complaint was lodged with the Magistrate, which has taken cognizance and issued summons to the company.

Samsung's counsel argued that on a combined reading of Section 52 and Section 10 of Metrology Act, 2009, it is quite clear that Numeration Rules, 2011 would apply only for weight, measure or number as detailed in Section 52(2)(f) of Metrology Act, 2009 and therefore, it is not at all applicable for price/MRP of packaged goods.

Agreeing, the Court added, “Rule 4(2) of Numeration Rules does not apply for price/MRP and therefore, no offence is made out as there is no violation of Section 11 read with Section 29 of Metrology Act, 2009.”

Court also observed that the price/MRP of packaged goods is regulated under Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011 and not as per Numeration Rules, 2011. “On bare reading of the above said Rule, this Court would find that the Department/complainant has virtually misinterpreted the law applicable to price/MRP and has arbitrarily issued notice for compounding the alleged offence.”

Then the court referred to Rule 13(5)(i) and 5(ii) and noted the said provision is applicable only for retail packages and are not applicable to wholesale packages. Rule 24 is applicable to wholesale packages.

Then the court said “On examining Rule 24(c), it is clearly evident that the second offence indicated in the complaint is wrongly applied. The said provisions are applicable to retail packages and not to wholesale packages. Under Rule 24(c), only number of quantity is to be disclosed without adding a prefix 'N' or 'U' as indicated in Rule 13(5)(ii) of Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011.”

Noting that the complaint is also not sustainable as it is registered against all the Directors when the company has clearly nominated a person in terms of Section 49 of the Metrology Act, 2009., the held prima-facie offence in question is not made out. It thus quashed the case.

Case Title: M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9771 OF 2017

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 222

Date of Order: 31-05-2023

Appearance: Advocate Avinash Amarnath, Advocate C.R. Mahendra Gowda for Petitioner.

HCGP Vinayak V S for respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order