Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. and others, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint No.454/S/2002 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai. The complaint alleged that on 19th December 2001, the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology inspected a general store in Malad, Mumbai, and found that two packaged commodities of Colgate Total Plax (250 ml) manufactured by M/s Acra Pac (I) Pvt. Ltd. and marketed by the applicants were displayed for sale without declaring the retail sale price as per Rule 2(r) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977. The manufacturer admitted the offence and agreed for compounding departmentally, but failed to pay the compounding fee. Consequently, a complaint was filed against the manufacturer, who pleaded guilty and paid a fine of Rs.12,000/- on 27th October 2004. The applicants, being the marketers, were also prosecuted in a separate complaint. The court examined whether the prosecution against the marketers could be sustained given that the manufacturer had already been convicted and fined for the same alleged offence. The court held that continuing the prosecution against the applicants would be an abuse of the process of law, as the manufacturer's conviction covered the same cause of action. The court quashed the complaint against the applicants, ruling that the marketer cannot be vicariously liable when the manufacturer has already been punished for the same omission.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 CrPC - Vicarious Liability - The court considered whether the marketer can be prosecuted for an offence under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rules when the manufacturer has already been convicted and paid fine for the same alleged violation. Held that continuing prosecution against the marketer would be an abuse of process of law, as the manufacturer's conviction covers the same cause of action. (Paras 1-5) B) Weights and Measures - Non-Declaration of Retail Sale Price - Rule 2(r) of Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977 - The complaint alleged that the retail sale price was not declared on the packaged commodity. The manufacturer admitted the offence and compounded it departmentally, but later failed to pay compounding fee, leading to prosecution. The manufacturer pleaded guilty and paid fine. The court held that the marketer cannot be separately prosecuted for the same omission. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings against the marketer (applicant) can be sustained when the manufacturer has already been convicted and fined for the same alleged offence, and whether the marketer can be held liable for non-declaration of retail sale price under the Packaged Commodities Rules.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed Criminal Complaint No.454/S/2002 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, against the applicants.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
- vicarious liability of marketer
- compounding of offence
- non-declaration of retail sale price
- Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976
- Packaged Commodities Rules 1977
