Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to four criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of complaints and cognizance orders passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak, for offences punishable under Sections 31 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The petitioners include M/s P J Margo Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, and Nestle India Limited along with its directors and officers. The respondent is the State of Karnataka represented by the Legal Metrology Officer, Gokak Sub-Division. The facts reveal that the Legal Metrology Officer filed complaints alleging that the petitioners were selling pre-packed commodities without proper declarations as required under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaints without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the proceedings on the ground that Section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act except upon a complaint made by the Director or authorized officer, and that before taking cognizance, the court must issue a notice to the accused to show cause. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 36 of the Act and held that the requirement of pre-cognizance notice is mandatory and not directory. The court observed that the Magistrate had mechanically taken cognizance without following the procedure prescribed under Section 36, which violates principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and complaints in all four petitions, allowing the petitions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Pre-cognizance Notice - The court considered whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of a complaint under Sections 31 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without issuing a pre-cognizance notice to the accused. Held that Section 36 of the Act mandates issuance of notice before taking cognizance, and failure to do so vitiates the proceedings. (Paras 1-10) B) Legal Metrology - Offences by Companies - Sections 31 and 36 Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - Vicarious Liability - The court examined whether directors and officers of a company can be prosecuted without specific allegations of their involvement. Held that in the absence of pre-cognizance notice and specific averments, the complaint against directors is liable to be quashed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of the complaint under Sections 31 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without issuing pre-cognizance notice to the accused as required under Section 36 of the Act?
Final Decision
The court allowed the criminal petitions and quashed the impugned orders dated 22.06.2020 passed in C.C.No.1040/2020 and the complaints dated 17.06.2020 filed by the respondent.
Law Points
- Pre-cognizance notice mandatory before taking cognizance under Section 36 of Legal Metrology Act
- 2009
- Principles of natural justice
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
