2025:KER:27576 Crl.M.C.No.5560/2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 5560 OF 2019 SEEKING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ST NO.356 OF 2017 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: 1 VENKATASWAMY SREENIVASA REDDY, AGED 70 YEARS S/O. SRINIVAS VENKATASWAMY REDDY, DIRECTOR, M/S. BRITISH NUTRITION'S PVT. LTD. NO.30, 10TH MAIN, ASHOKA PILLAR, 2ND BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 11. 2 CHITRA LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 65 YEARS W/O. VENKATASWAMY SREENIVASA REDDY, DIRECTOR, M/S. BRITISH NUTRITION'S PVT. LTD. NO.30, 10TH MAIN, ASHOKA PILLAR, 2ND BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 11. 3 BHARATH SREENIVASA REDDY, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. VENKATASWAMY SREENIVASA REDDY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. BRITISH NUTRITION'S PVT. LTD. NO.30, 10TH MAIN, ASHOKA PILLAR, 2ND BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 11. BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 THE SENIOR INSPECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY, THRISSUR - 680 005. BY ADVS.SRI.GRACIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON 02.04.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27576 Crl.M.C.No.5560/2019 2 O R D E R The petitioners are the accused Nos.2 to 4 in S.T.No.356/2017 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thrissur. The aforesaid case arose out of a complaint filed by the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology, Thrissur alleging the violation of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules 4, 7(2) and 18(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The aforesaid violations are stated to be punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rule 32(2) of the Legal metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Petitioners are stated to be the Directors and Managing Director respectively of the 1st respondent company which is the manufacturer of packaged protein powder. 2. Allegation against the petitioners is that when the Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology, Thrissur conducted an inspection in the establishment run by the petitioners on 12.05.2016, it was found that 1 Kilogram packaged commodity of protein powder kept there for sale did not conform to the requirements of Rule 7(2) and Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules. 2025:KER:27576 Crl.M.C.No.5560/2019 3 3. The complaint was originally lodged against the company by name M/s.British Nutritions Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore run by the petitioners. Later on the complainant filed a report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that the petitioners are the Directors and Managing Director respectively of the aforesaid company, and that they also may be arraigned in the list of accused. 4. The main contention of the petitioners is that, since they are having a valid licence issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and following the rules and regulations framed thereunder, the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules are not applicable to the products being sold by the petitioners. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions representing the respondents. 6. The contention of the petitioners that the relevant provisions of the Legal Metrology Act and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules are not applicable to their products since they have got licence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the rules framed thereunder, cannot be accepted in view of 2025:KER:27576 Crl.M.C.No.5560/2019 4 the provisions contained in Rule 7(5) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules. Rule 7(5) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules is extracted hereunder for the sake of easy reference. “7. Principal display panel - its area, size and letter etc. (1) xxxx xxxx (5) Except size of the numbers and letters for declaring net weight, retail sale price, date of expiry or best before or use by date (wherever and as applicable) and consumer care details, the provisions under sub-rules (1) to (4) shall not apply to a package if the information to be specified on such package under this rule is also required to be given by or under any other law for the time being in force.” 7. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that in respect of the size of numbers and letters for declaring net weight, retail sale price, date of delivery or best before or use by date or consumer care details, the provisions under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 are mandatory even though any other law would provide the parameters of label display containing the above particulars. Thus the contention of the petitioners that they are not bound by the requirements of the relevant rules under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 since they have got 2025:KER:27576 Crl.M.C.No.5560/2019 5 the licence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, is not legally sustainable. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioners against the maintainability of the prosecution initiated against them is devoid of merit. 8. As per Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, when an offence under the said Act has been committed by a company, the person who has been nominated by the company as responsible for the conduct of affairs of the said company, is liable along with the company for the violations detected by the authority concerned. It is further provided thereunder that, where no such person has been nominated, every person, who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for its conduct of business, are liable. As far as the present case is concerned, the complainant would contend that the accused company did not provide the details of the person nominated under Section 49 of the said Act. In the above circumstances, the prosecution for the violation of the provisions stated in this case could be launched against the company as well as the persons who are responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the time of commission of the offence. It is not made clear in the complaint as to whether the petitioners 1 to 3 2025:KER:27576 Crl.M.C.No.5560/2019 6 were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the 1st accused company. However, since the third petitioner is said to be the Managing Director of the Company, it has to be taken that he is responsible for the conduct of business of the company, and its day to day affairs. As against petitioners 1 and 2, who are arraigned as accused Nos. 2 and 3, it is not possible to say that they are liable for the violations alleged in this case since it is not shown that they are actually responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. In that view of the matter, the prosecution launched against the petitioners 1 and 2 herein, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3, is liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition stands allowed in part as follows: The prosecution launched against petitioners 1 and 2 in this petition, in S.T.No.356/2017 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thrissur, is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that there is absolutely no fetter for the prosecution for proceeding against the third petitioner as well as the first accused company in connection with the violations alleged in this complaint. (Sd/-) G. GIRISH, JUDGE jsr 2025:KER:27576 Crl.M.C.No.5560/2019 7 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5560/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 13.5.2016. ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANY DATED 27.5.2016. ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1.6.2016. ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPLY TO ANNEXURE C SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. ANNEXURE E CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.