IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 677 of 2006()
1. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SENIOR INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :.
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :28/09/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.677 of 2006
--------------------------
ORDER
Whether showing the name of the manufacturer as
marketed by on the package would violate the
mandatory requirements of Rule 6(1)(a) of Standards
of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities)
Rules, 1977, as it stood before the amendment? It
is the question to be settled in the petition.
2. First respondent lodged Annexure-D complaint
before Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kasaragod
against the petitioner. It was taken cognizance as
C.C.No.900/2005 for the offence under Section 33
and punishable under Section 51 of Standards of
Weights and Measures (Enforcement)Act, 1985 read
with Rule 6(1)(a) of Standards of Weights and
Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The case
of the first respondent is that on 17.6.2005, the
Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology inspected the
CRMC 677/06 2
Margin Free Market, Civil Station Junction,
Kasaragod and found Brooke Bond Red Label Tea,
marketed by Hindustan Lever Ltd., Mumbai, being
sold without bearing the declaration of the name
and address of the manufacturer and packer of the
commodity. In such circumstances, it is alleged
that provisions of Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules is
violated and therefore, the offence is committed.
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings
contending that when petitioner is the manufacturer
as defined under the Rules and name of the
petitioner has been shown, there is substantive
compliance with the provisions of Rule 6(1)(a) and
hence, the prosecution is only an abuse of process
of the court.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
4. Learned senior counsel pointed out that
Annexure-A(1) and A(2) label of Brooke Bond Red
CRMC 677/06 3
Label Tea shows the name of the petitioner and when
petitioner is the manufacturer, it is in
substantive compliance with the provisions of Rule
6(1)(a) of the Rules and in addition to being the
manufacturer, when the commodities are marketed by
the manufacturer, it is shown that it is marketed
by the manufacturer and therefore, it cannot be
said that there is violation of the requirements
provided under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules.
5. Argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is
that when Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules mandates that
the label shall contain a definite and plain
declaration showing the name and address of the
manufacturer or where the manufacturer is not the
packer, the name and address of the manufacturer
and packer and for any imported package, the name
and address of the importer, showing the name of
the petitioner as marketed by is not in compliance
with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6(1)(a) of
the Rules and therefore, there is violation, which
is an offence under Section 33, punishable under
CRMC 677/06 4
Section 51 of Standards of Weights and Measures
(Enforcement) Act.
6. Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules provides that
every package shall bear thereon or on a label
securely affixed thereto, a definite, plain and
conspicuous declaration, made in accordance with
the provisions of the Chapter, as to the name and
address of the manufacturer, or where the
manufacturer is not the packer, the name and
address of the manufacturer and packer and for any
imported package the name and address of the
importer. Rule 2(h) of the Rules defines a
manufacturer as follows:
“Manufacturer” in relation to any commodity in
packaged form, means a person who, or a firm or a
Hindu undivided family which, produces, makes
or manufactures such commodity and includes a
person, firm or Hindu undivided family who or
which puts, or causes to be put, any mark on any
packaged commodity, not produced, made or
manufactured by him or it, and the mark claims the
commodity in the package to be a commodity
produced, made or manufactured by such person,
firm or Hindu undivided family, as the case may
be.”
CRMC 677/06 5
It is thus clear from the definition that a
manufacturer could either be a person or firm which
produces or makes or manufacturers such commodity.
The inclusive definition widens the definition to
include a person or firm who or which puts or
causes to put any mark on any packaged commodity,
though not produced, made or manufactured, by him
or it. Hence, petitioner is definitely a
manufacturer as defined under Rule 2(h) read with
Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules.
7. When the manufacturer is not the packer,
Rule 6(1)(a) provides that in addition to the name
of the manufacturer, name of the packer should also
be shown. When manufacturer is also the packer,
only the name of the manufacturer need be shown.
When one name alone is shown, it can only be the
name of the manufacturer, even though it is not
specifically shown that he or it is the
manufacturer. When petitioner is the manufacturer
and name of the petitioner is shown, as mandated
under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules, though the name is
CRMC 677/06 6
not qualified as the manufacturer, he or it could
only be the manufacturer because, in a case where
the manufacturer is also the packer, only the name
of the manufacturer need be shown. It is not
provided that it should be shown that he or it is
the manufacturer and also the packer. Only if
manufacturer is not the packer, names of the
manufacturer and packer need be shown. Suppose, in
a case where the manufacturer is not only the
manufacturer but also the packer and is also
marketing the commodity, by showing that the
product is marketed by the manufacturer, it cannot
be said that provisions of Rule 6(1)(a) of the
Rules are violated. It is not necessary to qualify
the name of the manufacturer, if one name alone is
shown, because, if the manufacturer is also the
packer, it is not necessary to show the names of
the manufacturer as also the packer. When only one
name is shown, he or it shall be the manufacturer.
In such a case, it enables the consumer to know the
name of the manufacturer. Annexure-E communication
CRMC 677/06 7
received by the petitioner from Ministry of Food
and Consumer Affairs, clarifying that provisions of
Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules does not require it
necessary to qualify the name of the manufacturer
with a phrase “manufactured by”, strengthens the
said conclusion. In such circumstances, when there
is substantive compliance with the provisions of
Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules, continuation of the
proceedings is only an abuse of the process of the
court.
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.900/2005 on the
file of Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court,
Kasaragod is quashed.
28th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv