Telangana High Court

Abhy Maheswari vs The State Of Telangana on 21 February, 2025

            HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                        AT HYDERABAD

                                   *****
                   Criminal Petition No.4557 OF 2019 and batch
Between:


Radha Krishnan Vijay Krishnan                           ... Petitioner

                            And

The State of Telangana, rep. by
its Public Prosecutor and another                      ... Respondents


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:               21.02.2025

Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

1     Whether Reporters of Local
      newspapers may be allowed to see    Yes/No
      the Judgments?

2     Whether the copies of judgment
      may be marked to Law                Yes/No
      Reporters/Journals

3     Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
      wish to see the fair copy of the    Yes/No
      Judgment?



                                            __________________
                                            K.SURENDER, J
                                           2


                        * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER



                 + Criminal Petition No.4557 of 2019 and batch


% Dated 21.02.2025

# Radha Krishnan Vijay Krishnan                                           ...
Petitioner
                           And

$ The State of Telangana, rep. by
its Public Prosecutor and another                                ... Respondents


! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Rajesh Maddy


^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy,
                                        Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
1
    (2018) 17 SCC 275
2
    (2019) 3 SCC 797
                                       3


                   HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

     CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4557, 5018, 5020, 5021, 5022, and 5023 OF
                                 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Criminal Petition No. 4557 of 2019 is filed by Accused No.3,

Criminal Petition No. 5018 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 7, Criminal

Petition No.5020 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 4, Criminal Petition

No.5021 of 2019 is filed by Accused No. 2, Criminal Petition No.5022 of

2019 is filed by Accused No. 6, and Criminal Petition No.5023 of 2019 is

filed by Accused No. 5, invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, seeking

quashing of proceedings in S.T.C. No. 51 of 2019 pending on the file of

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal.

2. Since all the Criminal Petitions are questioning the proceedings

against them in the same case, i.e., STC No.51 of 2019, all the petitions

are disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.

3. A complaint was filed by the District Legal Metrology Officer, Legal

Metrology, who is an officer appointed under S.14 of the Legal Metrology

Act, 2009 (hereinafter, "the Act") and is an authorized officer to file the

complaint against the Accused under Rule 28 of the A.P Legal Metrology

(Enforcement) Rules, 2011, by virtue of the General Authorization issued

by the Controller, Legal Metrology, AP, Hyderabad, vide G.O.Ms. No. 10

CA, F&CS (CS-III) Dept., dated 1.4.2011, read with head office Memo No.

6950/T1/2011-3 dated 10.5.2012.

4. The complaint in S.T.C. No. 51 of 2019 has been filed against

Accused (A1) (Managing Director of M/s Mitashi Edutainment Pvt. Ltd.);

A2 (Managing Director of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd); A3, A4, A5,

and A6 (the Directors of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd); and A7 (Senior

Manager and Person Incharge of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd),

alleging contravention of Sections 18 and 36 of the Act, and Rule 4, Rule

2(m) read with Rule 6(1)(e), and Rule 18(1) of the Legal Metrology

(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter, "the Rules, 2011").

5. The genesis of the complaint is the inspection conducted by the

District Legal Metrology Officer on 3.7.2018, at about 5:45 pm in the

trading premises of M/s Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Survey No. 696,

Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. At the time of

inspection, A7 was present and conducting business transactions in the

said premises. The inspection revealed that A7 possessed, displayed, and

exposed for sale 15 retail packages of "Mitashi" HT2430 Fur, imported by

M/s Mitashi Edutainment Pvt Ltd., Godown No.4&5, Infinity Industries

Pvt. Ltd., Compound Pissa Dum Road, Bhiwala Village, Mumbai, and the

said packages did not bear the statutory declaration of Maximum Retail

Price in accordance with Rules, 2011. Hence, it was concluded that the

packages violated Rule 4, Rule 2(m) read with Rule 6(1)(e), and Rule 18(1)

of the Rules, 2011. Further, the accused, by possessing and displaying

the packages for sale in their trading premises, thereby contravened

S.18(1) of the Act r/w Rule 2(m), and Rule 6(1)(e) of the Rules, 2011, and

the same is punishable under S.36(1) of the Act.

6. During the inspection, the District Legal Metrology Officer-P seized

2 defective packages from A7, out of the 15, and the remaining 13

packages were kept under safe custody in the premises under S.15 of the

Act, under the cover of a panchanama in the presence of mediators LWs

3 and 4. A copy of the same was handed over to A7 on the spot with

proper acknowledgment.

7. The complaint also specifies that, prior to the filing of the

complaint, Notice No. 145/PC/2018-19 dated 3.7.2018 was served on

the Company-M/s Instakart, through an e-mail. The Company replied to

the notice on 19.12.2018, stating that the seizure report had already

been sent to the concerned Brand/Seller/Manufacturer, and that in

terms of Rule 18(1) of the Rules, 2011, the concerned

Brand/Seller/Manufactureris responsible. The Company also requested

the withdrawal of the notice and for no further action to be taken against

the Company and its Directors. The Company's request was rejected vide

Office Letter No. 142/PC/2018-19 dated 26.12.2018. Thereafter, the

complaint was filed in the Court.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

submits that:

1) The petitioners are arrayed as accused, making them vicariously

liable on behalf of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. However, the

company is not made as an accused, and as such, the question of

prosecuting the petitioners does not arise.

2) M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd is a logistic company, which acts as

a transporter or courier in between manufacturer and the

purchaser of the property. The petitioners have nothing to do with

the manufacturing process, as such, none of the penal provisions

of the Act are attracted.

9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of the Legal Metrology Officer/complainant would submit that

Section 18 of the Act, clearly mentions the word 'deliver'. Once it is

admitted that the petitioners, who are the Directors of the company, are

involved in the 'delivery' of the goods, the violations of the Act are

attracted.

10. The Legal Metrology Act was enacted in the year 2010, to enforce the

standards of weight and measures, regulate trade and commerce in

weights, measures and other goods, which are distributed by weight,

measure, or number, and for matters connected with the issues which

are specifically mentioned under the provisions of the Act.

11. The violations, as alleged in the complaint, are under Sections 18

and 36 of the Act, and Rule 4, Rule 2(m) read with Rule 6(1)(e), and Rule

18(1) of the Rules, 2011. For the sake of convenience, Section 18 and

Section 2(l) of the Act are extracted hereunder:

"18. Declarations on pre-packaged commodities.--

(1) No person shall manufacture, pack, sell, import, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged commodity unless such package is in such standard quantities or number and bears thereon such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Any advertisement mentioning the retail sale price of a pre-packaged commodity shall contain a declaration as to the net quantity or number of the commodity contained in the package in such form and manner as may be prescribed."

"2(l) "pre-packaged commodity" means a commodity which without the purchaser being present is placed in a package of whatever nature, whether sealed or not, so that the product contained therein has a pre-determined quantity;

12. Section 18 lays down strict requirements for the sale and

advertisement of pre-packaged commodities to ensure transparency and

consumer protection. It prohibits any person from manufacturing,

packing, selling, importing, distributing, delivering, offering, exposing, or

possessing for sale any pre-packaged commodity unless it complies with

prescribed standards. These standards include ensuring that the

package contains a specified quantity or number of the commodity and

that it clearly displays all mandatory declarations and particulars in the

prescribed manner. Additionally, if an advertisement mentions the retail

sale price of a pre-packaged commodity, it must also include a

declaration regarding the net quantity or number of items in the

package, following the prescribed format. These provisions are designed

to prevent misleading practices, ensure uniformity in trade, and protect

consumer interests. Section 18 of the Act deals with the pre-packaged

commodities, and pre-packaged commodity has been defined under

Section 2(l) of the Act, as extracted above. Since the product is packed by

the manufacturer in the absence of the purchaser, the details of the

package has to be mentioned for a purchaser to know about the product.

13. Section 18 of the Act uses specific terminology to regulate pre-

packaged commodities at each stage of their commercial lifecycle. Section

18 applies, among others, to manufacturers or sellers of the product: The

following group of words used in Section 18 of the Act, have to be

understood, basing on the intent of the legislature in enacting the law:

1) Manufacture: Involves producing or assembling a product that becomes a commodity ready for sale. The term 'Manufacturer' is defined under Section 2(i) of the Act.

2) Pack: Refers to placing a product into a package, by the manufacturer/Seller, that complies with legal metrology standards.

3) Sell: Involves the transfer of ownership in exchange for money or other consideration.

4) "import" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means bringing into India from a place outside India.

5) Distribute: Covers the supply of such commodities to retailers, wholesalers, other businesses for further sale to consumers or to the consumers directly through online sale.

6) Deliver: Encompasses physically handing over or transporting the product to buyers, retailers, or distributors, including through couriers and e-commerce logistics.

7) Offer: Involves the process of making the product available for sale or trade.

8) Expose (for sale): Refers to displaying a product in a way that signals its availability for purchase, whether on store shelves, in showcases, or through online listings.

9) Possess (for sale): Means having control or custody of a pre-

packaged commodity with the intent to sell, covering retailers, wholesalers and distributors.

14. The Act ensures that every stage of a commodity's commercial

lifecycle, from manufacture to final sale, is subject to legal scrutiny,

which helps prevent deceptive practices and protects consumer interests.

15. The petitioners are Managing Director/Directors/Manager of M/s.

Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. The agreement between M/s. Instakart

Services Pvt. Ltd. and Flipkart Internet Private Limited, the company

selling the product, is an agreement for logistic services. The Exhibit A to

the agreement specifies the services to be executed by the company, M/s

Instakart, which include:

i. Pickup of shipments from the company's warehouses. ii. COD/PP (Cash on Delivery/Prepaid) facility across all pin codes served by Instakart for delivery.

      iii.    Reverse pickup from end customers.
      iv.     ERP integration for better transaction visibility and monitoring

16. M/s.Instakart's services are for providing logistic services and not

amenable to the provisions under the Legal Metrology Act. Section 18 of

the Act applies to the entities directly involved in the process of

manufacturing, packing, selling, importing or distributing, pre-packed

commodities and none of these include the logistic providers. The job of

M/s.Instakart is only to transport the goods, and it is, in no manner,

involved in the labeling or packing the goods sent by the manufacturer.

The consumers place their orders on Flipkart, and the manufacturers,

distributers, or retailers, deliver the products to them through the

logistics providers, such as M/s Instakart Services.

17. The term 'deliver' used in Section 18 of the Act refers to the act of

transferring the goods as part of sale. The logistics company,

M/s.Instakart is not involved in the sale of the goods. It is either Flipkart

or the manufacturer who sells the goods. The logistics company, i.e.,

M/s. Instakart, confines its services to providing transport of the

goods/products. For the said reason, the logistics company will not fall

within the term 'deliver' as mentioned in Section 18 of the Act.

18. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners, who are

part of M/s. Instakart Services Private Limited, are in any manner

involved with the process of labeling or packing the commodity. The

goods found in the warehouses of M/s. Instakart are meant for

transportation. Nowhere in the complaint, has the complainant

mentioned, that the company has anything to do with the product, other

than to transport them, in accordance with the agreement with Flipkart.

19. The petitioners are also alleged of contravening Rule 4, Rule 2(m)

read with Rule 6(1)(e), and Rule 18(1) of the Rules, 2011. Rule 4 reads

as follows:

"4. Regulation for pre-packing and sale etc. of commodities in packaged form. - On and from the commencement of these rules, no

person shall pre-pack or cause or permit to be pre-packed any commodity for sale, distribution or delivery unless the package in which the commodity is pre-packed, a label is securely affixed and such declarations as are required to be made under these rules.

Explanation.-The existence of packages without the declaration of retail sale price within the manufacturer's premises shall not be construed as a violation of these rules and it shall be ensured that all packages leaving the premises of manufacturer for their destination shall have declaration of retail sale price on them as required in this rule."

20. From a reading of Rule 4 and the explanation thereto, it indicates

that, it is for the manufacturer to label the product, giving the details,

which are required to be mentioned in accordance with the Legal

Metrology Act, 2009. The logistics companies are not covered under Rule

4 since they do not engage, either in pre-packing the product by the

manufacturer, or in labeling the contents on the goods packed by the

manufacturer. The duty of the logistics company is confined to

transporting the goods, and nowhere is it alleged in the complaint that

the petitioners' company, M/s.Instakart Services Private Limited is

involved in the pre-packing process.

21. Rule 6(1)(e) of the Rules, 2011 reads as follows:

"Rule 6(1): Every package shall bear thereon or on the label securely affixed thereto, a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter as, to -"

Rule 6(1)(e): "the retail sale price of the package;

Provided that for packages containing alcoholic beverages or spirituous liquor, the State Excise Laws and the rules made there under shall be applicable within the State in which it is manufactured and where the state

excise laws and rules made there under do not provide for declaration of retail sale price, the provisions of these rules shall apply."

22. The Rule primarily concerns with the declaration of the retail sale

price on pre-packaged commodities. As already discussed, logistics

companies do not engage in the pre-packing, labeling, or pricing of

goods. Their role is limited to the transportation of pre-packaged

products, with no control over the declarations made on such packages.

Therefore, logistics companies are not subject to compliance with Rule

6(1)(e) since they do not determine or affix the retail sale price.

23. Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011 reads as follows:

"18. Provisions relating to wholesale dealer and retail dealers:

(1) No wholesale dealer or retail dealer or importer shall sell, distribute, deliver, display or store for sale any commodity in the packaged form unless the package complies with in all respects, the provisions of the Act and these rules."

24. From a reading of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011,extracted above, it is

clear that the Rule applies to wholesale dealer and retail dealers. Even

according to the complainant, the logistics company is neither a retailer,

nor a wholesaler. For the said reasons, Rule 18 does not apply to the

logistics company, unless it is proved that the logistics company had

undertaken the role of a dealer of the product either by retail or

wholesale. No such allegation is made in the complaint.

25. Notice was sent to M/s.Instakart Services Private Limited through

an e-mail. The notice of the complainant does not refer to the names of

any of these petitioners. According to the notice addressed by the

complainant, the company, M/s.Instakart, is only mentioned. Further,

no role is specifically attributed to any of the petitioners herein. In the