Bombay High Court
Superflo Private Limited And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 24 January, 2024
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2024:BHC-AS:4026-DB
Jyoti WP-2028-2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2028 OF 2014
Superflo Private Limited & Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. Pankaj Jagannath Das, Advocate for the Applicants.
Ms. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18th DECEMBER, 2023.
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th JANUARY, 2024.
JUDGMENT [PER: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.]
1) Present Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
seeking to quash C.C.No.373/SS/2013 filed by the Respondent No.2 against
JYOTI
RAJESH
MANE the Petitioners for contravention of the provisions of Sections 18 (1) and 36
11:16:34 +0530 (1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rules 9, 18 (6) of the Legal
Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and committing an offence
punishable under Section 36 of the said Act.
Jyoti WP-2028-2014.doc
2) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. Mahalaxmi
Ganapathy APP for the Respondent-State. Perused the record and the
Affidavit-in-Reply submitted for the Respondent No.2.
2.1) Record of the Petition reveals that Rule was issued and interim
reliefs in terms of prayer clause (d) was granted on 22nd January, 2016.
3) The facts giving rise to this Petition are briefly stated as under:-
3.1) That on 15th September 2012, Mr. V.K. Pawar, Inspector of the
Respondent No.2, visited at M/s.Ashok Enterprises, Shop No.155, Victoriya
Road, Byculla (E), Mumbai-27 and inspected the goods there. Said
inspection revealed that, on the packages of the goods 'Gistern fittings
Accessories of Water Saver Dual Flush Fitting', the MRP was altered by
smudging/rubbing and putting a rubber stamp of the MRP there, which was
ambiguous. The Petitioners are the manufacturers of the said goods. Thus,
the Petitioners have contravened the provisions of Sections 18 (1) and 36
(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rules 9, 18 (6) of the Legal
Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and committed an offence
punishable under Section 36 of the said Act. Hence, the Respondent No.2
filed the said C.C.No. 373/SS/2013 against the Petitioners. In turn, the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed to issue process against the
Petitioners for the said offence.
Jyoti WP-2028-2014.doc
4) The Petitioners challenged the Order of the issue process in
Criminal Revision Application No.1130/2013 before the Bombay City Civil &
Sessions Court, at Mumbai. The said Revision came to be rejected.
Therefore, the Petitioners have filed this Petition seeking to quash the
complaint bearing C.C. No.373/SS/2013, the Order of issue process and the
entire proceedings in this behalf pending before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, 15th Court Mazgaon, Mumbai.
5) The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the
Petitioner No.1 manufactures, inter alia, sanitary fittings including cistern
fittings such as side inlet valves, bottom inlet valves, push type outflow
valves front lifting outflow valves, pull-type outflow valves, dual flush
outflow valves and, also, inter alia, supplies the same in bulk to other
sanitary ware companies who manufacture, market and trade in sanitary
ware products, either for their consumption or for trade, based on the direct
orders placed by such companies on Petitioner No.1. These companies either
use the sanitary fittings supplied in bulk into the sanitary wares
manufactured by them and thereafter market and sell such sanitary ware
alongwith the fittings or sell only these sanitary ware fittings to their
customers through dealers, retailers etc.
6.1) The Petitioner No.1 manufactures and supplies the Products to
Jyoti WP-2028-2014.doc
M/s.Hindustan Sanitary ware and Industries Limited ('M/s.HSIL') based on a
pre-negotiated price per Product. In any order which is received by
Petitioner No.1 from M/s.HSIL, the MRP is not affixed or disclosed to the
Petitioner No.1.
6.2) It is submitted that, present impugned proceedings against the
Petitioners relate to Cistern fittings Accessories (item water saver dual flush
fitting- "products"), which were manufactured by the Petitioner in bulk for
the direct purchase order received from M/s. HSIL to supply the said
products with accessories in quantity mentioned therein. As per the
instructions of M/s. HSIL, the said products alongwith the accessories were
placed in the cartons customized in accordance with the art work sent by
M/s. HSIL to Petitioner No.1. Then, without packing or sealing and without
putting MRP on the carton, the same were forwarded to M/s. HSIL's Trading
division at Bibi Nagar, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the Petitioner No.1 was not
concerned as to how the said customized cartons were ultimately dealt with
by M/s. HSIL. The products supplied to M/s. HSIL through customized
cartons by the Petitioner No.1 were not finished products ready for sale.
They are either sold separately or assembled as a part of the sanitary ware.
Additionally, the Petitioner No.1 has no control, nor any instructions, either
to determine the MRP or of placing any MRP on the said Products. There is
Jyoti WP-2028-2014.doc
no investigation as to whether the packages on which the MRP was
smudged/rubbed and then the stamp of MRP was put, were prepared by the
Petitioner No.1 or not. There is no material that the Petitioners were
responsible for tampering the MRP as above. Therefore, the Petitioners
cannot be prosecuted for the offence of smudging or rubbing the MRP and
putting the rubber stamp of the MRP on the packages. As a result,
C.C.No.373/SS/2013 alongwith the Order of rejecting the Criminal Revision
Application No.1130/13 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7) Per contra, the learned APP submitted that, considering the
Petitioners are manufacturers of the subject product, they are liable for its
packaging and the missing details on the package. Therefore, the
Respondent No.2 has rightly lodged the impugned complaint against the
Petitioners. As such, the question of quashing C.C.No.373/SS/2013
alongwith the Order of rejecting the Criminal Revision does not arise.
8) There is no dispute that the Petitioners are manufacturers of the
subject product. Admittedly, the Respondent No.2 has filed three separate
complaints about the alleged offence. One case is filed against the
Petitioners and the other two against M/s.HSIL and M/s.Ashok Enterprises
respectively. From these circumstances, it is evident that first; the subject
product was sold to M/s.HSIL. Further; M/s.HSIL sold the said product to
Jyoti WP-2028-2014.doc
M/s.Ashok Enterprises. However, the record does not indicate that, when the
subject product was sold to M/s.HSIL by the Petitioners, at that time, the
said product was finally packed at the production center of the Petitioners
for marketing and selling purposes. Further, the subject complaint does not
indicate that, the MRP on the packages of the said product was
smudged/obliterated and the rubber stamp of the MRP was put thereon in
the production unit of Petitioner No.1. That apart, no sample package,
showing similar illegality in respect of the MRP, has been seized from the
production center of the Petitioners. As such, there is no material against
the Petitioners that, they only did the smudging/obliteration of the MRP and
put the rubber stamp of the MRP on the packages or that the said illegality
was committed by M/s.HSIL or M/s.Ashok Enterprises at the behest of the
Petitioners. There is no investigation by Respondent No.2 as to whether the
Petitioners were selling the subject product without packing it or in packages
and whether the Petitioners were directly or indirectly connected with the
packages on which the MRP of the goods was smudged/obliterated, as
alleged.
9) In view thereof, it is safe to infer that, there is no prima facie
case against the Petitioners having committed the offences alleged in the
impugned complaint. Therefore, continuation of the CC No.373/SS/2013
Jyoti WP-2028-2014.doc
against the Petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, said CC
No.373/SS/2013 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed and set
aside.
10) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is
made absolute.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK,J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
