Kerala High Court
Proctor & Gamble Home Products Ltd vs Senior Inspector on 11 September, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 1
2024:KER:69766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.3346 OF 2014
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 PROCTOR & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD
PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE KATHA
P.O.BADDIDISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH - 173
205,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 SHANTANU KHOSLA
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE
HOMEPRODUCTS LTD., PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL
AREA,VILLAGE KATHA, P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT
SOLAN,HIMACHAL PRADESH - 173 205.
3 B.S.MEHTA
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD.,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
4 G.C.DAS
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD.,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
5 C.R.DUA
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
6 ANIL KUMAR GUPTA
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KOTHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 2
2024:KER:69766
7 PRAMOD AGARWAL
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD.,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
8 SONALI DAWAN
DIRECTOR OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS
LTD,PLOT NO.1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE
KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH
-173 205.
9 JESSICA RASTOGI
DEPUTY COMPANY SECRETARY AND COMPLIANCEOFFICER OF
PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD,PLOT NO.1,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE KATHA,P.O.BADDI, DISTRICT
SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH -173 205.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SENIOR INSPECTOR
LEGAL METROLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADGP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2015 3
2024:KER:69766
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2575 of 2015
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners who are accused Nos. 6
to 14 in CC No. 3346/2014 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The above
case is filed by the 1st respondent - Senior Inspector, Legal
Metrology alleging offences punishable under Secs. 2(i), 2(l),
2(o) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 r/w Rules 2(d), 2(g),
2(k), 4 and 6(2) of the Rules, 2011.
2. The allegation in the complaint is that on
01.04.2014 at about 12.15 pm, the 1st respondent purchased
some articles from the shop Thrinethra Super Retail Pvt. Ltd,
near HDFC Bank, Ambalamukku and on inspection, it was
detected that in the packages exhibited, the mandatory
2024:KER:69766
declaration of the main address, telephone number, email
address if available of the person who can be or the office
which can be contacted in case of consumer complaints as
specified in Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Package
Commodities) Rules, 2011 was not seen declared. Article
No.1 inspected was PANTENE PRO-V SHAMPOO and Article
No.2 was OLAY NATURAL WHITE 3 IN 1 FAIRNESS SERUM.
It is alleged that in both the articles, the mandatory
declaration of the main address, telephone number, email
address, if available of the person who can be or the office
which can be contacted in case of consumder complaints as
specified in Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Package
Commodities) Rules, 2011 was not declared and hence,
punishable under Sec. 36(1) of the Act. Annexure-A is the
complaint. According to the petitioners, even if the entire
allegations are accepted, in the light of Annexure-G order
passed by this Court, the continuation of the prosecution
against the petitioners is an abuse of process of court. Hence,
this Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the
2024:KER:69766
Addl.Director General of Prosecution.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that
in the light of Annexure-G order, the continuation of the
prosecution is an abuse of process of court. Addl.Director
General of Prosecution submitted that there is some
difference in the facts of the case narrated in para 13 of the
judgment. This Court perused Annexure-G order. It will be
better to extract paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the above
judgment.
12. "The allegation against the petitioners was
that the package does not confirm Rule 6(1) (1-A) of
the above said rules which says that every package
shall bear the name, address, telephone number and
e-mail address if available of the person who can be or
the office which can be contacted in case of consumer
complaints. This was intended for the consumer to
approach the manufacturer in case of any defect in
the manufacture to get redressal of their grievances.
13. I have pursued the label declaration seen on
the packet where the manufacturer address is given
as "Tide is the trade mark of the Procter and Gamble
company and licensed to Procter and Gamble Home
Products Limited-Mumbai-400 099" and under the
caption consumer comments "consumer relations
telephone 022-24942113, email:[email protected].
2024:KER:69766
consumers. com" and bar code also was exhibited in
the packet. Neither in the mahazar nor in the
complaint presence of these descriptions were
mentioned. The allegation was that no declaration or
particulars as required under Rule 6(1) (1-A) was
found on the packet and not that what is seen is not
sufficient compliance of the rule. If the particulars
mentioned are sufficient for the consumer to contact,
the purpose of the rule has been complied with and
that was intended by the legislature as well. So under
the circumstances the allegation in the complaint that
the Rule 6 (1) (1-A) of the above said rules has been
violated appears to be not correct as the allegation
was not that the particulars given are not sufficient
but there is total lack of compliance of Rule 6(1) (1-A)
which appears to be not correct. So, under the
circumstances, this court feels that the allegation in
the complaint that there is violation of the rules and
thereby they have committed the offences mentioned
is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be
quashed. No purpose will be served by proceeding
with the case and proceeding with the case will
amount of abuse of process of court and it is a fit case
where the power under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the
proceedings. So the application is allowed and further
proceedings in ST.No.4116/2011 on the file of Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad as
against the petitioners is hereby quashed."
2024:KER:69766
5. As far as the articles mentioned in the
complaint, the petitioners produced a photograph of the
same as Annexures-H and I. A perusal of the same would
show that the details are mentioned. In the light of the same
and also in the light of the dictum laid down in Annexure-G, I
am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the
prosecution is not necessary.
Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC
No. 3346/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
2024:KER:69766
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN
CC NO.3346/2014 OF THE COURT OF THE
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE-B: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE (PANTENE PRO-V SHAMPOO) DATED
3.4.2014
ANNEXURE-C: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE (OLAY NATURAL WHITE 3 IN 1
FAIRNESS SERUM) DATED 3.4.2014
ANNEXURE-D: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY
(PANTENE PRO-V SHAMPOO) ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONERS DATED 11.4.2014
ANNEXURE-E: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY (OLAY
NATURAL WHITE 3 IN 1 FAIRNESS SERUM)
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 11.4.2014
ANNEXURE-F: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND
PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER AFFAIRS, LEGAL METROLOGY UNIT
DATED 12.1.2007.
ANNEXURE-G: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.
NO.2429/2013 DATED 19.3.2015
ANNEXURE-H: PHOTOGRAPH OF ARTICLE NO.1
PANTENE PRO-V SHAMPOO
ANNEXURE-I: PHOTOGRAPH OF ARTICLE NO.2
OLAY NATURAL WHITE 3 IN 1 FAIRNESS SERUM.
