Mussadi Lal-Ram Swaroop vs Society For Voice Of Human Rights & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3400 Del

     *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                   Date of Reserve:,15th July, 2010
                                                      Date of Order: July 20th, 2010

                                   +Crl. M.C 380 of 2010
%                                                                           20.07.2010
         Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.                        ...Petitioners
         Through: Ms. Shirish Khajuria, Advocate

         Versus

         Society For Voice of Human Rights & Justice
         & Ors.                                                    ...Respondents
         Through: Mr. Navin Bhargav, Advocate for R-1


AND
                                   +Crl. M.C 381 of 2010

%
         Mussadi Lal-Ram Swaroop                                   ...Petitioner
         Through: Ms. Shirish Khajuria, Advocate

         Versus

         Society For Voice of Human Rights & Justice
         & Anr.                                                    ...Respondents
         Through: Mr. Navin Bhargav, Advocate for R-1

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


         JUDGMENT

1. By these two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioners have sought

quashing of Complaint No.1429/1/09 filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

under Section 20 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of

Advertisement & Regulation of Trade & Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution)

Act, 2003 for violation of Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as

"the said Act") by the petitioners and for setting aside order of summoning dated 29th

Crl.MC Nos.380& 381 of 2010 Page 1 Of 3 August 2009 passed in the complaints.

2. The sole ground urged by the petitioners before this Court for quashing the order

is that the complainant allegedly purchased cigarettes/bidies packets from the shop of

the petitioners in April, 2009 whereas the Gazette Notification enforcing the Rules under

the said Act came into force on 31st May, 2009. Thus, on the date when the products

were purchased by the complainant, the Rules under the said Act had not come into

force and the offence cognizance of which was taken by the learned MM was not

committed.

3. The said Act was enacted in 2003 and Section 8 of the Act provided that every

packet/package of cigarette/ bidies or any other tobacco products shall have a specified

warning on the package displayed in a legible and conspicuous manner. Sub Section 2

provided that the manner of putting warning on the products shall be such as may be

specified in the Rules framed under the Act. Though the Act was passed in 2003, the

Rules regarding packaging and labeling were framed in 2008 and were published vide

GSR-182(E) dated 18th March, 2008 in Gazette of India Part-II. Rule (1) provided that

these Rules shall come into force on the date as Central Government may by notification

in Gazette appoint. Thus, the rules specifying how warning was to be displayed did not

come into force immediately on publication of the Rules. The nature of warning and the

mode of warning were specified in the Schedule of the Rules. It was provided that the

size of the warning shall be such that it occupies 40% of the principal display area of the

package.

4. The petitioners have placed on record notification of 3rd May, 2009 issued under

Tobacco Packaging and Labeling Rules, 2008 which prescribed that the Rules shall

come into force on 31st May, 2009. In the Notification itself it is stated that the principal

Crl.MC Nos.380& 381 of 2010 Page 2 Of 3 Rules were published on 15th March, 2008 and they were amended on 29th September

2008 and the Rules came into force on 31st May, 2009.

5. As per the complaint filed by the complainant before the learned MM, the

products were purchased by the complainant from the shop of the petitioners on 20th

March, 2009. It is thus clear that on the date when the products were purchased, the

Rules for putting statutory warning on the packaging had not come into force. The Rules

came into force on 30th May, 2009. Thus, no offence was made out for label not having

warning on the date when products were purchased by the complainant. I, therefore,

consider that these petitions are to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly. The complaint

number 1429/1/09 and summoning order dated 29th August 2009 passed by learned MM

is hereby quashed.

6. Both petitions stand disposed of in terms of above order.

July 20, 2010                                              SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




Crl.MC Nos.380& 381 of 2010                                             Page 3 Of 3