I have before me the PC Rules. A perusal thereof indicates that the provisions of Chapter II which contains Rule 2 (a) to Rule 28 is applicable to packages intended for retail sale only, whereas provisions of Chapter III which contains Rule 29 of the PC Rules applies to the wholesale packages. Thus, it is evident that the package in question being wholesale package as defined under 2(x)(iii) of the PC Rules; it is governed by chapter III and not chapter II. Thus, the provisions of Rule 13(5) read with Clause(b) of the Sixth Schedule of the PC Rules are not applicable to the package in question.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th February, 2013
CRL.M.C. 2259/2007
CARGILL INDIA P.LTD. Vs STATE
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
Citation;2015(1) Crimes 212 Delhi
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint Case No. SWMEA/ SA/PCR /GENI/ NORTH ZONE/ TLM 59/393-396 (registered as Criminal Case No.1111/2007) filed by Respondent No.3 prosecuting the Petitioner under Section 33 read with Section 51 of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976 (the Act of 1976).
2. On 15.06.2006, Respondent No.3 (Inspector, Weights & Measures) inspected the premises of M/s. Mangal Sain & Sons, 321/1 Main Subzi Mandi, Delhi. On conclusion of the said inspection, the Respondent no.3 made a detailed inspection report which is extracted hereunder:
“Checked the packages of Nature Fresh Acti Lite refined vegetable oil containing 12 packages of net content of 910 g each imported and marketed by Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Off at 13, Abul Fazal Road, New Delhi, Manufactured and packed by Global Oil and
Crl.MC 2259/2007 Page 2 of 4
Fats Ltd, having their Regd. Off. at 605-606, Jaina Tower II, District Centre, Janakpuri, Delhi-110058. The trader told that he has purchased the goods in question from Sh. Rajesh Sharma of M/s. Shivangi Enterprises, B-1535, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 vide bill no.4494 dated 31/5/2006. Seized the packets and left with trader”
3. The compounding notice dated 15.12.2006 was issued to the Petitioner and others stating that the Petitioner had committed breach of Section 33 punishable under Section 51 of the Act of 1976 presumably on the ground that the net contents of the package were 910 gms which was not standard packaging weight.
4. A reply dated 22.12.2006 was submitted to the Respondent No.2 stating that since the quantity in the case of refined vegetable oil could be by volume, there was no violation of Rule 5 read with Schedule III of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977(PC Rules). The reply is extracted hereunder:
“Dear Sir, We are in receipt of your captioned notice stating that M/s Mangal Saini & Sons was selling packages of Nature Fresh Actilite Refined Vegetable oil containing 12 packages of net content 910 g, each which is not standard packing. We would like to submit as follows: The package containing 12 packages of Nature Fresh Actilite is a wholesale package. As per Rule 2(x)(iii) of Standards of Weights and Measure (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977(hereinafter “PC Rules”), “wholesale package” means a package containing 10 or more than 10 retail packages provided that the retail packages are labled as required under the rules.
Crl.MC 2259/2007 Page 3 of 4
Regarding the individual packing of 910g, as per Rule 5 read with Schedule III, 1 litre is the standard quantity for edible oil and we have declared the quantity by volume as 1 litre and as required under the Schedule 23 have mentioned the equivalent quantity in term of mass i.e. 910 g is mass equivalent of 1 litre of Refined Vegetable Oil hence the package is in fact a standard package as prescribed under Schedule III of the PC Rules. In view of the above, it is clear that the Company is in breach of Section 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures(Enforcement) Act, 1985 and hence, we request the Department to withdraw the said notice.”
5. It is alleged that the Respondent No.2 changed the stand and instead alleged violation of Rule 13(5) read with the Sixth Schedule of PC Rules on the premise that where any commodity is packed by number, such packing shall (unless otherwise provided) have to be in multiple of five where the number exceeds ten. The Sixth Schedule is extracted hereunder:-
“The manner in which commodities intended to be sold by number shall be packed- Where any commodity is packed by number, such packing shall be made unless otherwise provided in these rules in the following manner, namely:
(a) Where the number is less than ten, by the integral number;
(b) Where the number exceeds ten but does not exceed one hundred, in multiples of five;
(c) Where the number exceeds one hundred but does not exceed (five hundred), in multiples of ten;
(d) Where the number exceeds five hundred but does not exceed one thousand, in multiples of fifty;
Crl.MC 2259/2007 Page 4 of 4
(e) Where the number exceeds one thousand, in multiples of one hundred.”
6. It is the case of the Petitioner (which is not disputed by the Respondents) that the package in question was a wholesale package within the meaning of Rule 2(x)(iii) of the PC Rules and thus the package was governed by chapter III and not by chapter II of the PC Rules.
7. I have before me the PC Rules. A perusal thereof indicates that the provisions of Chapter II which contains Rule 2 (a) to Rule 28 is applicable to packages intended for retail sale only, whereas provisions of Chapter III which contains Rule 29 of the PC Rules applies to the wholesale packages. Thus, it is evident that the package in question being wholesale package as defined under 2(x)(iii) of the PC Rules; it is governed by chapter III and not chapter II. Thus, the provisions of Rule 13(5) read with Clause(b) of the Sixth Schedule of the PC Rules are not applicable to the package in question.
8. The Petitioner has also raised an alternative plea of the complaint being barred by limitation. Since the Petition is liable to be allowed on this ground alone, I need not go into the question of limitation.
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, the Petition is allowed and the complaint filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate is quashed.
10. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
G.P. MITTAL, J. FEBRUARY 19, 2013 vk/pst
No comments:
Post a Comment