Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Danone Narang Beverages Private Limited, a company engaged in the manufacture and distribution of packaged natural mineral water under the brand name 'Qua', filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash a complaint (C.C.No.829/2012) filed by the first respondent, the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Flying Squad-2, State of Karnataka, and the entire proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I. The petitioner contended that its bottles had labels affixed containing all pre-printed information required, including the address of the manufacturer, nutritional information, and volume. However, batch numbers, date of manufacture, and retail price, which vary from batch to batch, were directly printed on the bottle while on the manufacturing line (online printing), a common practice. The Inspector, in exercise of powers under Section 15(1)(b) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, passed an order on 17.5.2012 seizing 65,907 bottles of Qua Natural Mineral Water on the ground that the maximum retail price (MRP) was declared on the neck of the bottle instead of on the label. The petitioner argued that this complied with Section 18 of the LM Act read with Rules 2(h) and 8 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. The Court examined the definition of 'label' under Rule 2(h) of the LMPC Rules, which includes any printed matter upon the container. Since the neck of the bottle is part of the container, the declaration of MRP on the neck is a valid declaration. The Court held that the seizure order and the complaint were without basis and liable to be quashed. The writ petition was allowed, and the complaint and all proceedings were quashed.
Headnote
A) Legal Metrology - Packaged Commodities - Declaration of MRP - Section 18 Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 2(h) and Rule 8 Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 - The petitioner manufactured packaged natural mineral water with MRP declared on the neck of the bottle by online printing. The Inspector seized the stock alleging that MRP was not declared on the label. The Court held that Rule 2(h) defines 'label' to include any printed matter upon the container, and the neck of the bottle is part of the container. Therefore, the declaration of MRP on the neck is a valid declaration. The seizure order and complaint were quashed. (Paras 2-5) B) Legal Metrology - Seizure - Validity - Section 15(1)(b) Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - The Inspector passed a seizure order on the ground that MRP was not declared on the label. Since the declaration on the neck of the bottle was valid, the seizure order was without basis. The Court held that the complaint and proceedings were liable to be quashed. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the declaration of the maximum retail price (MRP) on the neck of a bottle, instead of on the label, violates the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and whether the seizure order and subsequent complaint are liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The complaint in C.C.No.829/2012 and all proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I were quashed.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act
- 2009
- Rule 2(h) and Rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules
- 2011
- Declaration of MRP on the neck of a bottle is permissible
- Online printing of batch number
- date of manufacture and MRP is a common practice
- Seizure order under Section 15(1)(b) of the LM Act must be based on valid grounds
