The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2019, of the file of the Honourable XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District, against the Petitioner/Accu sed l.A. NO: 2OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2019, of the file of the Honourable XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District, including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition in the interest of the justice l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 o't Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pledsed To extend the interim orders dtd: 221412021, in CrlP No.5009/2019 until further orders l.A. NO: 1OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders granted by this Hon'ble Court on 08.1'1 .2019 in l.A. No. 3 of 2019 of Crl.P.No. 5009 of 2019 until further orders l.A. NO: 2OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased To extend the interim Orders dated 22.06.2022, in CRLP No. 5009 of 201 until further Order l.A. NO: 2OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased To recalling of the Non-Bailable Warrants against the petitioner issued by the XXll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Medchal in S.T.C. No.46/2019 l.A. NO: 3 OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders granted by this Hon'ble Court on 23.08.2019 in lA.No.2 of 2019 of Crl.P.No. 5009 of 2019 until further orders I I .: ,i This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAJESH MADDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public ProsecJtor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5012 OF 2019 Between: Abhy Maheswari, Aged aboul 42 years, Senior Manager [V1/s lnstakrt Services Pvt. Ltd., Sy. No.696, Gudla Pochampally Village,Medchal- Malkanjgiri District Rl/o H.NO.469, Malviya Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur-30201 1. ...PETITIONERYACCUSED - 5 AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High {)ourt at Hyderabad. ,2. The District Legal lVetrology Officer, Medchal- Malkanjgiri District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that ir the circumstances stated in the N/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 of 20'19, of the file of the Honourable XXll /etropolitan [r,4agistrate at lvledchal [)istrict, against the Petitioner/Accused . t.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 2210O12022, in Cttt-P No. 512 of 2019 until further orders and pass l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that i1 the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2019, of the file of the Honourable XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Cuash Petition in the interest of the justice and pass l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased To extend the interim orders dtd: 221412021 , in llrlP No.50'12/2019 granted until further orders and pass l. A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under section 482 of cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High court may be pleased to recalling of the Non-Bailable Warrants against the Petitioner issued by ine XXtt Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal in S'T.C. No. 46 of 2019 and l.A. NO: 1OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of cr.P.c praying thht in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders granted by this Hon'ble court on 08.11.2019 in l.A. No. 3 of 2019 of Crl.P.No. 5012 of 2019 until further orders and to pass ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriRAJESH lvlADDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Rdspondent No.1 . CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5015 OF 2019 Between: Ashish Kumar Gupta, Aged about 46 years, Occ..Director, [r4/s lnstakrt Services P-vt f_iii.,SV. flf".OSO, 6rdtu Fo"1,rrpatty Village,tvledchal- f{alkqnigiri District Ryo A-02, r...r"*tor.ri pr"='a cHs Ltd, Tha(ur Complex, xqnlfyqtjIF.qQ,-tt4qg'.bSllMqr'arastra - 400101. AND ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED '6 ,1 . State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2.TheDistrictLegalN/letrologyofficer,tvledchal-MalkanjgiriDistrict ...RESPONDENT/ ResPondents Petition under Section 482 ol cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in s.T.c. No.46 of 20'19, of the file of the ilonourable XXll 1r/letropolitan Magistrate at IVIedchal District, against the Petitioner/ Accused l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High court may be piuu""J To extend the interim orders dtd: 221412021, in CdP No.5015/20'19 until further orders . l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2019, of the file of the Honourable XXll I\,,4etropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main C)uash Petition in the interest of the justice and pass LA. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 22.06.2022, in CFLP No. 501 5 of 2019 until further orders and pass l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 , Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stdted in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased To recalling cf the Non-Bailable Warrants against tho petitioner issued by the XXll Additional I\,4etropolitan Magistrate Medchal in S.l- C. No.46/20'19 and This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing :he ltrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAJESH MADDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosec rlor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 . CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5041 OF 201s Between: Dinesh Varma, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Director, l\r1ls lNstatlart Services Pvt. Ltd, Sy. No.696, Gudla Pochampally Village, Medchal- Malkanjgiri District Fl/o 145, SF, Sector45,Gurgaon-120003,H.R. ...PETITIONERyACCUSED-4 AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High {)ourt at Hyderabad. 2. The District Legal Metrology Officer, IVedchal- Malkanjgiri District ...RESPONDE NT/ RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2019, of the file of the Honourable XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal t)istrict, against the P etitio n e r/Accu sed l.A. NO: 2OF 2022 Petition under Section 4E2 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim Orders dated 22.06.2022, in CRLP No. 5041 of 2019 until further Order and pass l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 2210412021 in Crl.P.No. 5041 of 2019 until further orders and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances staJed in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be'pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 ot 2019, of the file of the Honourable XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition in the interest of the justice l.A. NO: 2OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to recalling of the Non-Bailable Warrants against the Petitioner issued by the XXll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchalin S.T.C. No. 46 of 2O19 and to pass This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAJESH MADDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5064 OF 2019 Between: Nishant Vermon, Aged about 39 years. Managing Director, M/s lnstakrt Services Pvt. Ltd.. Sy. No.696. Gudla Pochampallc Village, Medchal- Malkanjgiri District Rt/o Tower No.9, Flat No.702. Golf Course Road, Near lBlS Hotel. Sector-S3, Sikanderpur, Haryana-l 22OO02. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED-2 AND 1, State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2. The District Legal Metrology Officer, Itiledchal- tValkanjgriri District. ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, lhe High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2019, ol the tile of the Honourable XXII lt/etropolitan Magistrate at lVledchal District, against the Petitioner/Accused. t.A . NO: 4 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,tle High Court may be pleased to receive the FORM No DIR-12 as a part of Criminal Petition No. 506412019 a r.A. NO: 3 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,t re High Court may be pleased To extend the interim orders dtd: 221412021 , in Cr P No.5064/20'19 until further orders t.A NO:2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased To extend the interim Orders dated 22.06.2022, in CRI,P No. 5064 of 2019 until further Order arid pass .A. NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2019, of the file of the Honourable XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main (luash Petition in the interest of the justice and Pass l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased To recalling of the Non-Bailable Warrants against the petitioner issued by the XXll Additional l\.4etropolitan Magistrate Medchal in S.f C. No.46/2019 and This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAJESH IVIADDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following COMMON ORDER I i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUREND]ER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4545, 5OO9' 5012' 5015, 5,041 and 5O54 OF 20L9 COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Criminal Petition No. 4545 of 2079 is filed try Accused No.3, Criminal Petition No. 5OO9 of 2Ol9 is hled by Accused No. 7, Criminal Petition No.50 12 of 2OI9 is filed by A5, Criminal F'etition No.5015 of 2019 is filed by A6, Criminal Petition No.5O41 of 2)79 is filed by A4, and Criminal Petition No.5O64 of 2Ol9 is frled by A:1, invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2O 19 pending on the fiie of XXII Metropolitan Magistrrete, Medchal.

2. Since all the Criminal Petitions are questionir4l the proceedings against them in the same case, i.e., STC No.46 of 2019, all the petitions are disposed off by u,ay of this Common Judgment

3. A complainl u,as filed by the District Legal Metrolog, Officer, Legal Metrologz, u,ho is al ofhcer appointed under S.14 of the Legal Metrolory Act, 2OO9 (hereinafter, "the Act") ald is an authorized officer to file the complaint against the Accused under Flule 28 of the A.P Legal Metrolory (trnforcement) Rules, 20ll, by virl.tte of the General Authorization issued by the Controller, Legal Metrologr, AP, Hyderabad, vide G.O.Ms. No. 1O CA, F&CS (CS-III) Dept., dated 1,.4.2011, read r.r,ith head office Memo No. 6950/'11/2011-3 dated 1,O.5.2012. 2

4. The complaint in S.T.C. No. 46 of 2019 has been filed against Accused (A1) (Managing Director of M/s Redington India Ltd); A2 (Managing Director of M/s Instakart Services hrt. Ltd); A3, A4, A5, and 4,6 (the Directors of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd); and A7 (Senior Manager and Person Incharge of M/s Instakart Services hrt. Ltd), alleging contravention of Sections 18 and 36 of the Act, and Rule 4, Rule 6(2), and Rule 18(1) of the Legal Metrologr (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 20 1 1 (hereinafter, "the Rules, 20 1 1"). 5i The genesis of the complaint is the inspection conducted by the District Legal Metrolog, Officer on 3.7.2018, at about 5:30 pm in the trading premises of M/s Instakart Services hrt Ltd, Survey No. 696, Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. At the time of inspection, A7 was present and conducting business transactions in the said premises. The inspection revealed that A7 possessed, displayed, and exposed for sale 36 retail packages of "MSi" Notebook- 10P6, GL638RC262IN, imported by M/s Redington Ltd., "Redington House," Centre Point Industrial Estate, Chennai, India, and the said packages did not bear the statutory declaration of the person in- charge or office address for consumer complaints. Hence, it was concluded that the packages violated Rule 4, Rule 6(2), and Rule 18(1) of the Rules, 201 1 . Further, the accused, by possessing and displaying the packages for sale in their trading premises, thereby contravened \ 3 Section 1B(1) of the Act r/w Rule 6(21 of the Rules, 2Ctll, and the same is punishable under Section 36(1) of the Act.

6. During the inspection, the District Legal I\{etrologr Officer-P Satyanarayana, seized 2 defective packages from .{7, out of the 36, and the remaining 34 packages were kept unde; safe custody in the premises under S.15 of the Act, under the cover of re palchanama in the presence of mediators LWs 3 and 4. A copy ,cf the sarne was handed over to A7 on the spot with proper acknowledgment. 7 .' The compla int also specifies that, prior to the filing of the complaint, Notice No. 144/PCl2018 19 dated 3.7.2,)lB was served on the Company M/s Instakart, through an e-mail. Th,: Company replied to the notice on 19 .\2.2078, stating that the seizure report had already been sent to the concerned Brand/Seller/I{anufacturer, and that in terms of Rule 1B(1) of the Rules, 2O11, the concerned Brand/ Seller/ Manufacturer is responsible. The Company also requested the r.l,ithdrawal of the notice and for no fi.tr.ther action to be taken against the Company and its Directors. The Oompany's request was rejected vide Office Letter No. f42/PC/2018-19 dated 26.12.2OL8. Thereafter, the complaint r.,r,as filed in the Court.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits thaL: t 4 1) The petitioners are arrayed as accused, making them vicariously liable on behalf of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. However, the company is not made as an accused, as such, the question of prosecuting the petitioners does not arise. 2l M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd is a logistic company, which acts as a transporter or courier in between manufacturer and the purchaser of the property. The petitioners have nothing to do with the manufacturing process, as such, none of the pena,l provisions of the {ct are a t tracted.

9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Legal Metrologr Officer/complainant would submit that Section 18 of the Act, clearly mentions the word 'deliver'. Once it is admitted that the petitioners, who are the Directors of the company, are involved in the 'delivery' of the goods, the violations of the Act are attracted.

10. The Legal Metrologr Act was enacted in the year 2010, to enforce the standards of weight and measures, regulate trade and commerce in weights, measures ald other- goods, which are distributed by weight, measure or number and for matters connected with the issues which are specilically mentioned under the provisions of the Act

11. The violations, as alleged in the complaint, are under Sections 18 and 36 of the Act, and under Rufes 4,6(21 and 18(1) of the Rules, \ \ q 5

2011. For the sake of convenience, Section 18 and :)(1) of the Act are extracted hereund er " 18. Declaratious on pre-packaged commodities.- (1) No persorr shall manufacture, pack, sell, impr>rt, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged commodrty unless such package is in such standard quantities or number and bears thereon such declarations ald particulars in srrch manner as may be prescribed. (2) Any advertisemcnt mentioning the retail sale price of a pre- packaged comrnoclity shall contarn a declaralion as to the net quantity or number of the commodity contained in the packagr: in such form and malner as may be prescribed." "2(1) "pre-packaqed commodity" means a commodity which without the purchaser beine present is placed in a package of wl-iatever nature, whether sealed or not, so that the product contained therein has a pre- determined quantity; 12 . Section 18 lalrs down strict requirements lor the sa,le and advertisement of pre packaged commodities to ens;ure transparency and consumer protection- It prohibits any person from manufacturing, packing, selling, irnporting, distributing, delivering, ,tffering, exposing, or possessing for sale any pre-packaged commodity unless it complies with prescribed standards. These standards include ensuring that the package contain s a specified quantity or number tf the commodity and that it clearly displays all mandatory declaration.s and particulars in the prescribed malner. Additionally, if an advertisement mentions the retail sale pricL- of a pre-packaged commodity, it must also include a declaration regarding the net quantity or number of items in the package, following the prescribed format. Thest: provisions are designed to prevent misleading practices, ensure ur:Liformity in trade, ,// [!i, a l I 6 and protect consumer interests- Section 1g of the Act deals with the pre-packaged commodities, and pre_packaged commodit5r has been defined under Section 2(ll of the Act, as extracted above. Since the product is packed by the manufacturer in the absence of the purchaser, the details of the package has to be mentioned for a purchaser to know about the product. 13 Section 18 of the Act uses specific terminologr to regulate pre_ packaged commodities at each stage of their commerciat lifecycle. Section 18 applies, among others, to manufactllrers or sellers of the product: The following group of words used in Section 1g of the Act, have to be understood, basing on the intent of the legislature in enacting the law. 1) Malufacture: Involves producing or assembling a product that becomes a commodity ready for sale. The term .Manufacturer, defined under Section 2(il of the Act. 2) Pack: Refers to placing a product into a package, by the complies with legal metrologz manufacturer/Seller, that standards. 3) Sell: Involves the transfer of ownership in money or other consideration. exchange for 4) "import" with its grammatical vanations bringing into India expresslons, means outside India. cognate a place 7 5) Distribute: Covers the supply of such corrLmodities to retailers, wholesalers, other businesses for fui-ther sale to consumers or to the consumers directly through online sa-le. 6) Deliver: Encompasses physically handinll over or transporting the product to buyers, r,:t.ailers, or distributors, including through couriers and e-commerce logistics. 7) Offer: Involves the process of making the product available for sale or trade. b; Expose (for sale): Refers to displaying a prodtrct in a way that signals rts availability for purchase, whether on store shelves, in shou,cases, or through oniine listings.l 9) Possess (for sale) : Means having control or c r,Lstody of a pre-packaged commodity with the intent to se ll, covering retailers, wholesalers and distributors.

14. The Act enst-tres that every stage of a commodity's commercial lifecycle, from ma:rufacture to final sale, is subject to legal scrutiny, which helps prevent deceptive practices and prc,tects consumer interests 1 5. The petitioners are Managing Director/ Dire,:t.ors/ Malager of M/s.Instakart Services Rrt. Ltd. The agreemenr-, between M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. and Flipkart Internet Prirrate Limited, the company selling the product, is an agreement for logistic services. .The 8 Exhibit A to the agreement specifies the services to be executed by the company, M/s Instakart, which include: i) iu) Pickup of shipments from the company's warehouses. COD/PP (Cash on Delivery/Prepaid) facility across a-11 pin codes served by Instakart for delivery. Reverse pickup from end customers. ERP integration for better tralsaction visibility and monitoring

16. Instakart's services are for providing logistic services and not amenable to the provisions under the Lega,l Metrologr Act. Section I 8 of the Act applies to the entities directly involved in the process of manufacturing, packing, selling, importing or distributing, pre-packed commodities and none of these include the logistic providers. The job of M/s.Instakart is only to transport the goods, and it is, in no marrner, involved in the labeling or packing the goods sent by the manufacturer. The consumers place their orders on Flipkart, and the manufacturers, distributers, or retailers deliver the products to them through the logistics providers, such as M/s. Instakart Services.

17. The term 'deliver' used in Section 18 of the Act refers to the act of transferring the goods as part of sale. The logistics company, M/ s.Instakart is not involved in the sale of the goods. It is either Flipkart or the manufacturer who sells the goods. The logistics company, i.e., M/ s.Instakart, confines its services to providing transport of the goods/products. For the said reason, the logistics !- 9 company will not fall within the term 'deliver' as mt:ntioned in Section 18 of the Act.

18. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners, who are part of M/s.lnstakart Serrrices Private Limited ale in any murnner involved with the process of Iabeling or packing. tt.e' commodity. The goods found in the warehouses of M/ s.lnstakdrr-: or€ meant for transportation. Nowhere in the complaint, has the complainant mentioned, that the company has anything to do rvith the product, otler than to transport them, in accordance with tre agreement with Flipkart.

19. The petitioners are also alleged of contraveninpl Rule 4, Rule 6(2), and Rule 18(1) of the Rules, 2011. Rule 4 reads as follows: "4. Regulation for pre-packing and sale etc. of cornmodities in packaged fonn. - On and from tLrc commencement c.,F these ntles, no person sholl pre-pack or cause or perrnit to be p,pt-p61a1red any commodity for sale, distibution or deliuery unless the package in tuhich tle conmoditg is pre-packed, a label is securely afftxed and such der.-larations as are required to be made under these rules - Explanation.-The eistence of packages uithout t,fuz decloration of retail sale pice within the manufacturer's prer.ises sholl not be construed as a uiolation of these rules and it sh.:tl.l be ensured that all packages leauing ttrc premises of manufa<:turer for their destinotion sJtall haue declaration of retail sale pric<z on them as required in this rule."

20. From a reading of Rule 4 and the explanation thereto, indicates that, it is for the manufacturer to label the product. giving the details, which are required to be mentioned in accordan,:e with the Legal 10 Metrologr Act, 2009. The logistics companies are not covered under Rule 4 since they do not engage, either in pre packing the product by the manufacturer, or in labeling the contents on the goods packed by the manufacturer. The duty of the logistics company is confined to transporting the goods, and nowhere is it alleged in the complaint that the petitioners' company, M/s.Instakart Services Private Limited is involved in the pre-packing process.

21. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2011 reads as follows: "6.Declaration to be mad.e on euery package: (1)(a) the name and address of the manufacturer, or u.there the manufacfurer is not the packer, the name and address of the manufacturer and packer and for ang impofted package the name and address of the importer shall be mentioned on euery package. (2) Euery package sholl bear the namq address, telephone number, e mail address, if auaitable, of the person tuho can be or the office uhich can be, contacted, in case of consumer complaints."

22. The Rule mandates displaying of name, telephone rlurr,bey or e- mail numbers, if available of the person, who carr be contacted in case of consumer complaints. Since the logistics company is only involved in the process of transportation, the question of making the logistics company liable for not finding label on the packages meant for transport, with said details of narne and address etc., does not arise.

23. Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2O11 reads as foliows: "78. Provisions reLating to utholesale dealer and retail dealers: (1) No u-*nlesale dealer or retail dealer or importer shall sell, distribute, deliuer, display or store for sale ang commoditg in the packaged form unless the pockage complies uith in all respects, the proui^sions of the Act and ttese rules." 11

24. From a reading of Rule 18 of the Rules, 20 11, extracted above, it is clear that the Rule applies to wholesale dealer end retail dealers. Even according to the complainant, the logistics colnpany is neither a retailer, nor a wholesaler. For the said reasons, Rule [8 does not apply to the logistics company, unless it is proved that the logistics company had undertaken the role of a dealer of the product either by retail or wholesale. No such allegation is made in the compla:.nt.

25. Notice r,r,'as sent to M/s.Instakart Services Private Limited thiough an e mail. The notice of the complainant does not refer to the nalnes of any of l.hese petitioners. According to tht: notice addressed by the complainant, the company, M/s.Instakart, is only mentioned Further, no role is specifically attributed to any c,f the petitioners herein. In the absence of making the company as an accused, I prosecuting the petitioners is erroneous. I I

26. In MD Castrol (Indiaf Limited v. State of Karnatakar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed criminal proceelings against the Managing Director due to the absence of any specih<: allegations about his responsibility in the company's business or oper:rt.ions. '1zor8; tz scc zzs 7 I 12

27. In Himanshu v. B.Shivamurthyz, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that prosecuting the directors of the company, without implicating the tompany, is unsustainable. 2a' Th6 provisions of Legal Metrolory Act and Rures thereunder, are not attracted in case of the logistics company, M/s.Instakart. Further, the compaly M/s.Instakart Services private Limited is not made an accused. For both reasons, the Crimina_l petitions deserve to be allowed.

29. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused in STC No.46 of 2OI9 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, are hereby quashed.

30. Accordingly, all Criminal petitions are allowed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District. 2. The District Legal Metrology Officer, Medchal_ Malkanjgiri District 3. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to SRt. RAJESH MADDy Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. (OUT) kul w '1zors1 : scc zsz HIGH COURT DATED:,2110212025 I {i\E srA ,A ( \i \J tI 9, ? 2 C / -,, COMMON ORDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos : 4545 5009 5012 5015 and 5064 OF 2019 5041 ALLOWING THE AI-L CRL.PETITIONS \