Telangana High Court
M/S. Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs The State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5596 of 2023
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Çr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in STC.No.12 of 2023 on the file of the learned XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 18/36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with rules 4, 18 (1), 6(1)(e), 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), 11 and 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities), Rules, 2011 (for short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant visited the retail outlet of M/s. Reliance Retail Limited, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, and on inspection, found "Lux Extract Vitamin E Megal Pack" and stored for the purpose distribution/sale to consumers. On examination, the declaration as required under Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules - 2011 are not mentioned which are:
i. The net quantity and the Retail sale price were not marked in a colour that contrasts conspicuously with back ground of the label and the declaration is not legible and prominent.2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.5596 of 2023 ii. The petitioner has not marked the Retail Sale Price declaration in accordance with Rules 6 (1)
(e) of the Act, because the Maximum Retail Price has not been rounded off to the nearest rupee or 50 paisa.
iii. The products were cross checked by respondent No.2 on an electronic weighing machine having the maximum weight capacity 5 kg and it was noticed that the weight of 5 products manufactured on 07.10.2021 ranged from 411.5 grams to 420.5 grams and weight of the remaining 36 products manufactured on 25.05.2022 ranged from 420.5 grams to 435.0 grams. It was further alleged that the maximum permissible error for the product is 3% of the net weight when packed and the net weight for the products after allowing the MPE should be 436.5 grams (3% of 3U x 150 grams) and whereas, excepting the (three) products manufactured on 25.02.2022 all the remaining 38 products were not showing the desired weight and were measuring 436.5 grams.
3. For the said reasons, the package of the product was packed and taken. The said non mentioning of the above details as required under law amounts to contravention of Sections 18/36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with rules 4, 18 (1), 6(1)(e), 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), 11 and 21 of the Act. Basing on the said complaint, respondent No.2 registered a complaint before the learned learned XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and the same was numbered as STC.No.12 of 2023.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.5596 of 2023
4. Heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Chandrasen Law Offices, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that M/s. Reliance Retail Limited had in fact paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.2 for the purpose of compounding the offence. The offence was compounded by receiving the fee. In the said circumstances, the proceedings in STC are liable to be quashed.
6. The contraventions are regarding the Retail Sale Price not being mentioned etc as required under Rule 6(2) of the Packaged commodities Rules were not complied with.
7. Firstly, in the event of respondent No.2/District Legal Metrology Officer accepting the amount of Rs.5,000/- for compounding the contraventions and permitted by the Court, the alleged contravention by virtue of compounding is effaced. Cognizance is taken of the offence and not offender. There cannot be any selective compounding of the offence when the accused are more than one. If the complaint goes ahead and 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5596 of 2023 compounds the offence even at the instance of one of the accused, it cannot be said that compounding is confined to that accused. There cannot be selective compounding in a case. Once the offence itself is compounded, the question of continuance of proceedings against any of the accused in the said case does not arise. As already stated, the compounding is for the offence alleged and not the offender.
8. Section 320 of Cr.P.C deals with compounding of the offences under IPC. Compounding is not defined in Code of Criminal Procedure. Compounding in general would mean a process whereby a person in default filing an application with the authority who can compound the offence. Once the concerned authority accepts the proposal for compounding, the default/offence ceases to exist for prosecution after acceptance by the person/authority to compound the offence. Similarly, under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. certain categories of criminal offences can be compounded at the instance of the victim/aggrieved. In case such an application is made by the victim/aggrieved person and the Court accepts the application and permits compounding of the offences and compounds the same, the result would be an acquittal of the accused. 5
SKS,J Crl.P.No.5596 of 2023 "320. Compounding of offences.
The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table:-
The offences punishable under the Sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) Code specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table:
The composition of an offence under this Section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded."
9. In the decision of Asian Paints and another vs. State of Karnataka represented by Department of Weights and Measures in Criminal Petition No.5119 of 2017 decided on 28.09.2022, the Karnataka High Court held that even if one of the accused were to compound an offence, the other accused can always approach the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.6
SKS,J Crl.P.No.5596 of 2023
10. In the judgment reported in Kamal Kishore Biyani vs. Shyam Sunder Bung and others 1 , it was held that there cannot be any compounding selectively against a particular accused. If the complainant compounds the offence, it is the offence that is compounded and not against the offender.
11. Though a reading of Section 320 (8) may give an impression that compounding can be against a particular accused but the provision when read in its entirety, section 320 (1) and (2) are clear that an 'offence' can be compounding is not directed against a particular offender.
12. In view of my observations above and also the judgments cited supra, once the offence has been compounded, the question of proceeding against this petitioner does not arise. The complaint cannot selectively make an application before a Court stating that he intends to compound the offence against one accused and continue prosecution against another. It is apparent from Section 320 Cr.P.C. that compounding would be of the offence and not against a particular offender. For the said reasons, the proceeding against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 1 (2013) 2 ALD (Cri) 460 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5596 of 2023
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in STC.No.12 of 2023 on the file of the learned XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 03.06.2024 SAI