- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1254 CRL.P No. 100267 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100267 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAJA BHANDARI, B B CORPORATION AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: 3, DAVIDSON STREET, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY HUBBALLI, SUB DIVISION-2, HUBBALLI, NOW REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON’BEL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH COGNIZANCE DATED 24.05.2023 AND FURTHER PROCEEDING IN CC NO.1340/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC I COURT, AT HUBBALLI AGAINST ACCUSED NO.3/PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 36(1) OF LEGAL METROLOGY ACT 2009. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.28 15:16:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1254 CRL.P No. 100267 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner/accused No.3 has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 3. The respondent filed a private complaint alleging that on 09.11.2022, at about 3:00 p.m., during an inspection of the shop owned by Kandakur Enterprises, articles P1 and P2 were seized for examination. It was discovered that three packed products did not bear consumer care details, and the net quantity declarations were not in compliance with the prescribed norms under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. A notice was subsequently issued under Section 48 of the Act. 4. On behalf of the respondent-State, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance of the offence, and the order warrants no interference. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1254 CRL.P No. 100267 of 2025 6. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100585/2020, at paragraph 10, observed as follows: “10. In terms of sub-clause (1) of Section 50, a remedy of appeal is available to an offender against any decision taken on the reply to notices for offences punishable under Sections 27 to 39 of the Act. The alleged offences in this case are under Sections 31 and 36 of the Act, and these remedies are available to the petitioners. The respondent, without passing an order, directly registered a complaint and initiated criminal proceedings. This act of the respondent renders Sections 48 and 50 of the Act nugatory. The petitioners’ rights are violated by the respondent’s act of registering a criminal case without adhering to the procedural requirements under the Act. This Court, in Ms. Shalini K. vs. The Inspector of Legal Metrology and Another (W.P.No.51116/2017 and connected cases), while interpreting identical provisions, held: Compounding of offences is a remedy available under the Act for offences punishable under Sections 27 to 39. Further, an appeal under Section 50 is also available to an accused against any order passed under Sections 15 to 20, 22, 25, 27 to 39, and 41 of the Act. If the respondent initiates criminal proceedings without first passing an order, the right to appeal under Section 50 becomes illusory. Silence on the part of the respondent cannot be construed as an order. The obligation to pass a written order, accepting or rejecting the accused’s reply, is mandatory under the Act. Only after the appeal process is exhausted or the reply is adjudicated can criminal proceedings be initiated. In the absence of such compliance, the registration of a criminal case is premature and unsustainable.” 7. The decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P. No.100585/2020 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In this case, the respondent, after issuing a show-cause notice, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1254 CRL.P No. 100267 of 2025 failed to pass any written order on the petitioner’s reply, thereby depriving the petitioner of the statutory right to file an appeal under Section 50 of the Act. 8. The failure to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Sections 48 and 50 of the Act vitiates the subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in part. The matter is remitted to the respondent to act in accordance with the law by considering the petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notice and passing an appropriate order in terms of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Only after compliance with these procedural requirements may any further proceedings be initiated, if warranted. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1340/2023 pending before the JMFC-I, Hubballi, insofar as it relates to petitioner-accused No.3 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS CT: VH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48