Nirma Ltd.Co.Ahdmedabad vs State Of Maharashtra & 3 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 6957 Bom

                                                  1              wp2027.02.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 2027 OF 2002

            Nirma Ltd., a company duly registered
            under the provisions of Companies Act and 
            having its Registered Office at Nirma
            House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad -
            Gujrat, through its Authorised Signatory ......                  PETITIONER

                                 ...VERSUS...

 1.         The State of Maharashtra, through
            its Secretary, Department of Legal
            Metrology, Mantralaya, Madam Cama
            Road, Mumbai.

 2.         Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology
            Department of Legal Metrology,
            Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

 3.         Inspector of Legal Department of Legal
            Metrology, Nagpur Division, Room No.
            128, Old Sachivalaya, Commissionerate
            Building, Nagpur.

 4.      Union of India, through its Secretary,
         Department of Civil Supplies, 12-A,
         Jamnagar House, New Delhi ............                           RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri A.A.Naik, counsel for Petitioner.
 Shri B.M.Lonare, AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
                                        MANISH PITALE, JJ.

th DATE : 8 SEPTEMBER, 2017 .

 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Pitale, J.)


            1]             By   this   petition,   the   petitioner   has   sought




                                                  2             wp2027.02.odt

quashing and setting aside of seizure memo dated

16.04.2002 and communications dated 17.04.2002 and

14.05.2002 whereby 3540 packs of New Green Nima

Detergent Cake were seized by Respondent No.3.

2] The said packs were seized for alleged violation

of Rule 12(6) of Standards of Weight and Measures

(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. It was alleged that

the use of the word "extra" on the pack of the said detergent

cake violated the aforesaid Rule as it created an

exaggerated, misleading or inadequate impression as to the

quantity of the commodity contained in the package.

3] On 20.06.2002, this Court passed an interim

order directing that the respondents will not take any coercive

action or file any criminal complaint against the petitioner on

the cause of action in the petition, including detention of

goods. Thereafter, on 30.07.2002, while granting Rule, the

aforesaid interim relief was continued and it was further

directed that so far as the seized goods were concerned, the

respondent shall keep the required quantity of goods by way

of sample with it and the rest of the material be released to

3 wp2027.02.odt

the petitioner on his depositing Rs.25,000/- in this Court by

way of security.

4] Shri Akshay Naik, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the instant

petition is now covered by the judgment of the learned Single

Judge of this Court in the case of Shantanu Jagatbandhu

Sinha and another vrs. State of Maharashtra, reported in

AIR 2007 Bom. 206. The learned counsel submits that while

considering the similar issue concerning application under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner therein, the

learned Single Judge of this Court found that the use of word

"extra" could not be said to be a misleading declaration

because the package clearly stated the exact quantity of the

commodity being offered and the price for which it was being

offered, as also the additional quantity being clearly and

separately stated on the package. It was held that in such a

situation, there was no intention to mislead or exaggerate

the quantity of the package.

5] The learned counsel has taken us to the

package in the instant case. A perusal of the same shows

4 wp2027.02.odt

that the net weight of the detergent cake is specifically stated

as 250 gms., with MRP of Rs.5/- and the additional quantity

of 50 gms., is also separately shown with the words "20%

extra". We find that the package does not give any

misleading or exaggerating impression as regards quantity

being offered in the package and that the facts in the present

case stand covered by the aforesaid judgment of the learned

Single Judge of this Court.

6] Accordingly, we allow this petition, quash and

set aside the impugned seizure memo dated 16.04.2002 and

the communications dated 17.04.2002 and 14.05.2002

issued by the respondent No.3. The amount of Rs.25,000/-

deposited by way of security in pursuance of the order dated

30.07.2002 be returned to the petitioner along with interest, if

any, accrued thereon.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order

as to costs.

                                JUDGE                        JUDGE


 Rvjalit