Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Id., sec. 60(2). 154 A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS be deemed to have abetted such offence.91 However, no such abetment can be deemed to have taken place if such an employer has, before the expiry of seven days from the date on which he comes to know of the contravention, or he has reason to believe that such contravention has been made, intimated in writing to the controller the name of the person by whom such contravention was made and the date and other particulars of such contravention.92 The punishment for abetment of an offence under the Act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. For the second or subsequent offence, the punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also fine.93 Dismissal or termination of service of an employee after the expiry of the specified period will not absolve the employer of the said liability.94 The companies are also liable for offences under the Act and every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business, as well as the company, is deemed to be guilty of the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.95 The person concerned can escape liability if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such an offence.96 If it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer is deemed to be guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.97 Delay in launching proceedings has been a subject of certain cases under the Act. In M/S Keciyo Coconut Oils Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. State of Kerala?* there were allegations against the accused about use of weights and measures without registration and non-maintenance of records, but the court had acquitted the petitioners of these charges in an earlier case on the same facts, invoking bar by limitation under section 468 Cr PC. The proceedings against the petitioners were held as not maintainable in the subsequent proceedings as there was specific bar for prosecuting them under section 300 Cr PC for the same offence. In State of Maharashtra v. 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Id.. sec. 61(1). Id.. proviso to sec. 61(1). Id.. sec. 61(2). Id., explanation to sec. 61. Id., sec. 62(1). Id., proviso to sec. 62(1). Id., sec. 62(2). 2002 Cri LJ 1087. THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1985 155 S. V. Dongre," the Supreme Court has held that the delay in launching prosecution cannot be condoned without notice to the accused. No notice was given by the court below to the petitioners herein regarding consideration of the question of condoning the delay for launching the prosecution. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioner. In M/S Lucas Indian Service Limited, Madras and Others v. State ofAndhra Pradesh,™ the allegation against the petitioners was that they were the wholesale distributors of automobile services. The package of the accused was bearing the retail sale price declaration as 'M.R.P.' instead of 'Maximum Retail Price'. The complainant seized those packages and filed a charge sheet. After trial, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to pay fine. They preferred appeal challenging the conviction and the sentence on the ground that the findings were contrary to law and facts and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The court ruled that for the words 'Maximum Retail Price' it would be sufficient if "M.R.P." is marked thereon. In fact, the rule had been later amended to that effect. VI. Cognizance of Offence Notwithstanding any provisions of the Cr PC, any court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act only upon a complaint, in writing, made by the controller or any other authorised officer or any aggrieved person or a recognized consumer association. The offence, however, cannot be tried by any court inferior to the court of a metropolitan magistrate or judicial magistrate of first class.101 Certain offences are triable summarily. These includes: (a) manufacturing and sale of non-standard weights and measures; (b) sale or delivery of commodities by non-standard weights or measures; (c) keeping for vise non-standard weights and measures; (d) use of weights and measures other than the specified for a particular purpose; (e) issuing quotations etc. in non-standard weights and measures; (f) manufacture, sale or repair of weights and measures without licence; (g) sale or use of unstamped weights and measures; (h) sale by heaps not following the provisions of the Act; and (i) any violation of the rules under the Act.10-