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.
SKS,J
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.
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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.
SKS,J
"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.
SKS,J
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.
(2013) 2 ALD (Cri) 460
SKS,J
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
