Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. and its Deputy Company Secretary, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the seizure of goods, a notice, a complaint, and the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad issuing process against them. The background of the case is that on 8 May 2002, the Inspector of Legal Metrology (respondent no.2) inspected the premises of the applicant company at Aurangabad and seized certain batches of Palmolive Naturals Soap (with milk cream) and Palmolive Naturals Soap (Relaxing) on the ground that they weighed less than the declared net weight. A receipt dated 8 May 2002, a notice dated 11 May 2002, and a complaint dated 18 October 2002 were issued, and the Magistrate issued process on 19 October 2002. The applicants contended that the sampling procedure under Section 29(6) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rule 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1985 was not followed, as no notice was given to the manufacturer before sampling and the samples were not taken in the prescribed manner. The court analyzed the provisions and found that the mandatory requirement of giving notice and an opportunity to the manufacturer was not complied with. The court held that the seizure and the subsequent criminal proceedings were invalid and an abuse of process. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the seizure, notice, complaint, and the order issuing process.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 - The applicants sought quashing of seizure, notice, complaint, and process issued by the Magistrate. The court examined whether the sampling procedure was followed as per law. Held that non-compliance with mandatory sampling rules vitiates the seizure and subsequent proceedings (Paras 1-10). B) Weights and Measures - Sampling Procedure - Section 29(6) of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rule 23 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1985 - The Inspector seized soap batches without giving notice to the manufacturer or following the sampling procedure. The court held that the mandatory requirement of giving notice and opportunity to the manufacturer before sampling was not complied with, rendering the seizure invalid (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Law - Process Issuance - Validity - The Magistrate issued process based on a complaint that did not disclose compliance with sampling rules. The court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process and liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the seizure of goods and the subsequent criminal proceedings are valid when the sampling procedure under Section 29(6) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rule 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1985 was not followed.
Final Decision
The court allowed the criminal application and quashed the seizure of goods, the notice dated 11.5.2002, the complaint dated 18.10.2002, and the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad dated 19.10.2002 issuing process against the applicants.
Law Points
- Standards of Weights and Measures Act
- 1976
- Section 29(6)
- Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules
- 1985
- Rule 23
- Sampling procedure
- Seizure
- Criminal proceedings
- Quashing
- Section 482 CrPC
