Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Parle In Case Alleging Violation Of Legal Metrology Rules

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while dealing with a petition filed by M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against it for not displaying the retail sale price printed on the 'principal display panel' on its FROOTI bottle, but printed on the neck of the bottle, held that same was not violative of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. 

The instant case arose in the year 2014, while the amendment to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules thereunder were enacted in 2017. The Court therefore discerned that the Rules as in force on the date of incident would alone be applicable herein.

While noting so, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that:

"As per rule 8(1), every declaration ought to appear on the principal display panel. However, Rule 2(h) defines the principal display panel as the total surface area of the package. An option is also given to the manufacturer to print all the information (both pre-printed and online) either grouped together at one place on the principal display panel, or the pre-printed information grouped together and given at one place and the online information grouped together and given at another place of the principal display panel. In the instant case, the pre-printed information is given on the wrapper encircling the bottle, while the online information, though grouped together, is printed on the neck of the bottle".

The Court further noted that Rule 8(2) stipulates that for soft drinks and ready-to-serve fruit beverages that the retail sale price shall be indicated either on the crown cap or on the bottle or on both, if the bottle is one which can be refilled.

"There is nothing in Rule 8(2) which indicates the clause to be restrictive in character. Rule 8(2) can be regarded only as an addition to and not as a restriction or exception to Rule 8(1). In other words, Rule 8(2) is only an enabling provision, enabling the manufacturer to have the option to specify those required details printed in the places mentioned in the sub-rule also". 

As per the factual matrix, it is noted that the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology purchased a 1.5 litre pre-packed bottle of the fruit-based beverage, 'Frooti' on March 3rd, 2014. The very next day, he issued a notice to the manufacturer, alleging that the product manufactured by them violated the provisions of rule 8(2) as well as rule 31(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2011'). It was alleged that the product did not contain the retail sale price printed on the 'principal display panel' and that the font size of the declaration of MRP was not the same as that of the net quantity declaration, thereby making it punishable under section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2009'), as well. 

Although a reply notice was issued by the petitioners contending that the product satisfied the requirements of the Act and the Rules, the same was disregarded by the department which proceeded to file a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging violation of Rules 4, 6, 7(2), 9(1)(b), 9(3) read with rule 8(2) and 18 of the Rules, apart from section 18 and section 36(1) of the Act.

It is in this context that the instant petition was filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology.

It was contended by Advocates Madhu Radhakrishnan and Nelson Joseph that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners was without any basis. It was contended that, despite the existence of a nominee under section 49 of the Act, petitioners have been arrayed as accused contrary to the statute. It was further contended that the product seized and produced before the court could not evidence commission of any offence under the Act and the Rules, since the contents of the seized package were wholly removed. It was further submitted that the allegation that on the bottle of 'FROOTI', the information on retail sale price was not printed on the label, as mandated by the Rules, is baseless and also that the numerals declaring the MRP and packing date were of sufficient size.

On the other hand, Public Prosecutor K.A. Noushad, argued that in the instant case, there was no compliance of the requirement to bear the details regarding MRP and requisite information on the package, as per Rule 6. It was further contended that the name of the nominee was never informed to the first respondent, despite two show cause notices, and hence the petitioners could not take the defence of Section 49 of the Act for the same. 

The Court noted that the criminal proceedings had been initiated alleging violation of two specific requirements, namely, the declaration of MRP was not printed on the label and was not legible; and that the font size of the numerals of MRP and packing date was not of the required size.

It is in this context the Court observed that, 

"Though in ordinary perception, the principal display panel will mean only the wrapper encircling or affixed on the bottle, the Rules perceive the principal display panel differently. The definition of the aforesaid term regards the total surface area of the package as the principal display panel. When Rule 8(1) directs that the total surface area of the package as the place where the information can be given in the manner specified, Rule 8(2) stipulates that for soft drinks and ready-to-serve fruit beverages or the like, to indicate the retail sale price either on the crown cap or on the bottle or on both, if the bottle is one which can be refilled".

The Court also perused the definition of 'label' in Section 2(f) of the Act, and noted that every package is required to have the print of the MRP either on the package or on the label securely affixed. 

"...the mere affixing of the retail price and the other online information grouped together and printed on the neck of the bottle satisfy the requirements under the Rules then in force, and there is no violation of rule 8(2) as made out from the complaint". 

The Court therefore categorically ruled:

"Since at the time the first respondent purchased the product of the petitioners, the rules treated the entire bottle itself as a principal display panel and since the information, both online and pre-printed, could be affixed separately or together on the principal display panel, this Court is of the view that there is no legal basis for the allegation of infraction of Rule 8(2)". 

As regards the second allegation that the font size of the numerals of MRP and packing date was not of the required size, the Court noted the Rules in this regard and found that if the net quantity of the product is above 500g or 500 ml, the minimum height of the numerals must be 4mm in normal cases and it must be 6mm when the numerals are blown, formed, molded embossed or perforated on the container. The allegation herein is that the height of the numeral is not 6mm.

"On a perusal of the complaint, it is evident that the product in question is not stated to be containing any blown, formed, molded embossed or perforated numerals on the container. In other words, the height of the numeral needs to be only 4mm as in the normal case and not 6mm as alleged in the complaint. In the absence of any specific allegation in the complaint that the product purchased by the first respondent, contained any blown, formed, molded, embossed or perforated numerals, the allegation of the requirement of a minimum height of 6mm for its numerals, is without any basis", it found. 

The Court further noted with concern that what was produced before the Court was only the plastic bottle, without the product or the commodity inside it.

"The removal of the commodity from the bottle has a significant impact as regards the allegations. The legibility and clarity of the label or the online information printed on the bottle become clear only with the commodity inside the bottle. Merely because the product or the commodity is perishable, it was not open for the Inspector to remove the commodity from the bottle without complying with the provisions of the Act or the Rules, as that will prejudice the accused during the prosecution. It is for this purpose that the Act read with the Rules stipulate that if the commodity is perishable, the provisions of section 451 Cr.P.C. is required to be followed. There is no mandate or stipulation that enables the Inspector to remove the commodity from the bottle, rendering the accused to prejudice. The proceedings are liable to be quashed for this reason also", it held.

As regards the non-prosecution of the nominee and the illegal prosecution of the Managing Director and other Directors of the company contrary to section 49 of the Act, the Court discerned that since the entire complaint itself had to be quashed, such other questions were only academic in nature, and left the same open. 

It is under these circumstances that the Criminal Miscellaneous case was allowed and the proceedings were quashed. 

Case Title: M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Senior Inspector & Anr. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 668

Click Here To Read/Download The Order