JUDGMENT
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. The petitioner is hereby assailing the
process issued against him in respect of a
complaint made by Shri Patil T.K., Inspector of
Legal Metrology, 72, Moreswar, Patankar Marg, Pipe
Road, Kurla, Mumbai in respect of violation of
provisions of Section 39 of the Standards of
Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act” for convenience) and Rule
23 (1) of the Standards of Weights & Measures
(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter
referred to as “Rules” for convenience).
2. Shri T.K. Patil filed a complaint in the
Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Room No. 31,
Vikhroli, Mumbai, alleging that the Petitioner did
not mention the date of manufacture of “Birla
White Portland Cement” though the net weight, week
and year of manufacture, maximum retail price
(inclusive of all taxes) was printed on the
package.
3. For the Petitioner Shri Shah submitted
that if the provisions of Section 39 of the Act
and Rule 23 (1) of the Rules read with Rule 6 (1)
are perused carefully, there is no obligation on
the part of the manufacturer or wholesaler or
retailer to mention the date of manufacture on
such packages or bags, Shri Saste appearing for
the State of Maharashtra could not contradict this
submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner by
Shri Shah.
4. If Section 39 of the Act is carefully
read, there is no obligation on the manufacture,
wholesaler or retailer to mention the date of
manufacture on such packages or bags. Even if
Rules 23(1) and 6(1) of the Rules are perused
carefully, no such obligation has been indicated.
Therefore, the manufacturer, wholesaler or
retailer cannot be put to trial on account of the
failure to mention the date of manufacture on such
package or bag which has been brought to shop or
commercial institute for sale or for exhibition to
sale. If the month and year of manufacture has
been printed, the weight has been mentioned,
retail price (inclusive of all taxes) has been
mentioned, it would be sufficient compliance of
the provisions of the Act and the abovementioned
rules.
5. When this complaint was presented before
the said Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, it was
the duty of the said Magistrate to apply his
judicial mind towards the allegations made in the
complaint by perusing the relevant provision of
law before thinking of issuing the process. As it
has not been done, the learned Magistrate has
landed in error of issuing the process. Needless
to say that appearing in a court for trial exposes
such a person to lot of humiliation, expenditure
and annyanace. It is an annoying ordeal which
takes away such a person from his occupation of
livelihood and other business which he has to do
in his life including social activities. Law does
not contemplate that. Therefore, this Court
exercises the jurisdiction and power vested in it
in view of Article 227 of the Constitution of
India as well as in view of provisions of Section
482 of Cr.P.C. 1973. The process issued against
the present petitioners by the Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Room No. 31, Vikhroli, Mumbai in
respect of Criminal Case No. 203/c of 1996 stands
quashed. He need not attend that Court for this
case.
6. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of
this order duly authenticated by the Private
Secretary of this Court.