Legal Metrology Act | Accused Confessing & Compounding Offence Doesn't Impede Co-Accused Challenging Prosecution: Karnataka HC

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj reasoned that confession on part of the accused does not bind the co-accused.

The development comes in the case instituted against Asian Paints Limited and its Dealer under section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act for storing sealants, which were alleged to not have proper description in terms of Rule 12(2)(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011.

It was alleged that the product was liquid in nature and thus the same would have to be described by mass and weight. However, since the weight was not declared and volume in terms of millilitres, which was declared, there is a violation of the provisions of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Packaging Rules.

The prosecution submitted that the dealer had compounded the offence by making payment of Rs.5,000 as compounding fee. The same amounts to an admission on the part of the dealer of an offence having been committed, and therefore, it is open for petitioners to compound the offence and not seek for quashing.

However, the bench said, "It is trite law that even a confession of a co-accused cannot implicate the other accused, if it is a false confession."

In the present case, having come to the conclusion that there is no violation of the Packaging Rules which was committed by the petitioners and that the description of the product in terms of volume is proper and correct, the Court said,

"The compounding of the alleged violation and the payment of the compounding fee thereon by one of the accused cannot be said to come in the way of the petitioners challenging the proceedings which ought not to have been initiated in the first phase...Even if one of the accused were to compound an offence in the event of any grounds being available, the other accused could always approach this court in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C."

Further referring to the Packing rules, the Court said that the commodity in question is a liquid and thus, the Inspector of the Department of Legal Metrology ought to have considered the provision of Rule 12(2)(d) of the Packaging Rules which would be applicable to a liquid and not 12(2)(a) of the Packaging Rules which deals with solids, semisolid, viscous or a mixture of a solid and liquid."

It also observed that Rule 12(2) of the Packaging Rules states that except in the case of commodities prescribed in the Fourth Schedule, the units would have to be in terms of 12(2)(a) to (e) of the Packaging Rules. In the event of the commodities being specified in the Fourth Schedule, Rules 12(2)(a) to (e) would not be applicable. Item No.16 of the Fourth Schedule deals with liquid chemicals in terms of column 3 thereto, as regards which the declaration could be expressed in terms of either weight or volume.

Following which the bench held, "The petitioners having chosen to describe the same by volume in terms of Fourth Schedule. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made a choice and the said choice being legally permissible and provided for cannot be faulted with...When there is a liquid chemical or liquid which has been sold, the declaration in terms of weight/measures could be done either by weight or volume in terms of item No.16 of the Fourth Schedule as also in terms of Rule 12(2)(d) of the Packaging Rules."

Moreover, the court held that there was violation of Section 202 of CrPC the Magistrate neither held an enquiry, as the accused was staying beyond its jurisdiction nor a reasoned order was passed as to why summons ought to be issued to the petitioners.

Accordingly, it allowed the petition.

Case Title: ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5119 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

Date of Order: 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

Appearance: AJITH A SHETTY., ADVOCATE for petitioners; MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP for respondent

Click Here To Read/Download Order