Criminal Petition No. 4544 of 2019 · The High Court · 2025

0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to receive the FoRM No. DrR-12 r.-i prrt of criminar petition No. 4544 ot 2019. -482 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of crimrnar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Rajesh Maddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the sri M. Vivekananda Re,rdy, Assisiant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. Criminal Petiti on No.5017 of 2019 Between: R Anir Kumar Reddv Aged about 36 years, senior.Manager M/s rnstakrt services pvt Ltd sv. No 6e6 otiora eocrramliiiv virrliij,fuair,ii"nrrrri'"jgi,i oi.j..i=iil'nro trr*rrrhinivas, Opp. nre'OuiOlgatlinnrrrr, CurrJoiJrri..b"ing, Ruffi AND ...petitioner/Accused_7 '1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2. The District Legal tvletrology Officer, Medchal_ Malkajgiri District. ... Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section .492 0t cr p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground" or cri'iinii ietition, the High court may be pleased to quash lhe oroceedings in s.T c. r.ro. sz or 201g, of the fire of the Hon.ble xv Metroporitan Magiitrate at Me-Jchar District, against the Petitioner/Accused. - I.A. NO:2 oF 2019 Petition under {iection.4g2 of .Cr.p.C praying that in the cirr:umstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or criminii p"ttion, the High court may be preased to grant stav of a, further-proceJi"g. i, s r.c. N".!z zorq'"i'it" file of the Hon'bre XV Metroporitan rt,lrgirtiriu? Medchar District jncrudinq the "i appearance of the Accused ti, the dis[osar or ttre rraain ou";]il; ;x il" interest of the justice. I.A. NO: 2OF 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 Metropolitan Magistrate Medchal in S.T.C. No.52 of 2019. 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 Sri lril. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents- Criminal Petition No.5024 of 2019 Between: Dinesh Varma, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Director, M/s lnstakart Services Pvt. Ltd, Sy. No.696, Gudla Pochampally Village, Medchal- Malkanjgiri District R/o 145, SF, Sector45, Gurgaon- 120003, H.R. ... Petitioner/fu cused-4 AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2. The Diskict Legal Mekology Officer, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. ...Respondents/Respondents 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. 52 of 2019, of the file of the Hon'ble Additional XV Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District, against the Petitioner/Accused. l.A. NO: 2OF 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. 52 of 2019 of the file of the Hon'ble Additional XV 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 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 Metropolitan Magistrate, liledchal in S.T.C. No. 52 of 2019. t_ '-- -...r'?-'_.. 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 Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Rssistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. Criminal Petition No.5025 ot 2019 Between: |,fi^??iYg,r",il633's:sHj,r{:ff R/o Tower No.9, Flat No 7 Sikanderpur, Haryana-122O j7fl 5:11[:!il#ffi fl t,i#,:F "#[ AND ... Petitioner/Accused-2 'r' state of rerangana, Rep. by its pubric prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad. 2. The District Legat Metrotogy Officer, Medchal_ Malkajgiri District petition under Section .4-82 orc. p c prrvingRil::',^::"::.,r".: stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may P.e qlgaseg tg quash the proceedings in s.T.c. r'rt. sz or 2019, of the fire of the Hon ble xv Metroporitan MagiJtrate at nt"a"r,"t oistrict againsi ine Petitioner/Accused. l.A. NO:2 oF 2019 Petition under section 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or crrminat petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stav of ail further-proceedintsin s.r c. No. 52 o"f zois, th" file of the Hon'bre XV Metroporitan ru"gi"ti"i.? Medchar District irrcrudino the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Or;;;-;r;ii;;;";; i;. interest of the justice. -482 "i l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition unejer Section of Cr.p.C praying that in the cir,:ur1s12n"". stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of cri;in;r petition, the High court may Pr.?1"1:.99 to recailing of the Non-Bairaore warrants against the petitioner issued by the XXlt Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate, nr"J"nrr in s.T.c. No. ti2 of 20.19. t.A. NO: 4 0F 2021 -482 Petition under section .4^82 0f .cr.p.c praying that in the circ,umstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ot cririinii ietition, the High court may be pleased to receive the FORM No. DIR-12 as a part of Criminal Petition No 5025 ot 2019. 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 Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. Criminal Petition No.5026 of 2019 Between: Ashish Kumar Gupta, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Director, M/s lnstakrt Services Pvt. Ltd., Sy. No.696, Gudla Pochampally Village, Medchal- Malkanjgiri District R/o A-02, New Gokul Plaza CHS Ltd, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East). Mumbai, Maharastra - 400'101 . ...Petitioner/Accused-6 AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2. The District Legal Mekology Officer, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. ...Respondents/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.52 of 2O19' of the file of the Honourable XV Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District, against the Petitioner/Accused. l.A. NO: 2OF 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. 52 of 2019, of the file of the Hon'ble Additional XV 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 Uy ifre XXtt Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Medchal in S.T'C- No.52 of 2019' This petitior coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon iurring If," ,rgrr"nt. of Sri Rajesh Maddy' Advocate for the petitioner and the sri M] vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. Criminal Petition No.5O27 of 2019 Between: fl tr"1l#g?tr;r,fl?tr,,1ri*x:d;ltlfl iq":'#x,Hsi'#'r,ff rlsffi "",:hlT AND ... Petitioner/Accused_S 1' state of rerangana, Rep. by its pubric prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad 2. The District Leqal Metrotogy Officer, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. ... Respondent Petition under Section of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand* or c,rouno.-"i c"r,#iili,ir"tition, the uigl court r;ay be preased to quash the oroceeding. i" s i.c.N;. iz ot zols, of *re fire of the 5,ffi#l:rf"JV oMe.ropotita" District, asainst the rvrrdi.tirtJ 'rI'rra"J"r,rr -4^g2 t.A. NO;10F 2019 Petition under Section -4^g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the cir,:umstances stated in the Memorandrm ot crouios-"i c"r#,lJi'b"tition, the High court'may be preased to qrant stav of air rr.tn"ip-."""ii.gl's r.c. No. s2 of 20i9, of the file of the Hon'bre XV Merroporita; dgil;rr; ;i"M'etchat District, incrudinq the ;[::.Tilii""l$:"i""'"0 tirr ilre ais-posi'-oiir,"'r',rr,, euash petition ii ihe I.A. NO:2OF 2021 Petition under Section - 4_g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memoranct,,m of crounds-li ci,i#iiii,petition. the High cou.t mry be pteased to reca,ino oi ttre won-aai;# ;i#r;," against the petitioner issued by the XXil Additionat'ir,tetropotitan nf"Ertiri" fvi"Oiiat in S.T.C.No. 52 <tf 2019. This petition comin [::,^i: [:i": "^:ffi ir'J,: [il::,yT :i;"iffi' G ro u nds or c r m in ai p;i Maddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the ar, ,l r,r.*rranda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respond*,, The Court delivered the foilowing: COMMON JUDGMENT - ,irEt,'.*g&: l i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos'4544r 1cOL7' isD24' 5()25' 5o.26' eloil 5o27 oF 2019 COMMON WDGMENT:

1. Criminal Petition No' 4544 of 2Ol9 is hled by Accused No'3' Criminal Petition No. 5017 of 2Ol9 is filed by Accused No' 7' Criminal Petition No.5024 of 2Ol9 is hled by Accused No' 4' Criminal Petition No'5025 of 2Ol9 is frled by Accused No' 2' Criminal Petition No.5O26 of 2Ol9 is hled by Accused No' 6' dnd Criminal Petition No'5027 of 2Ol9 is hled by Accusbd No' 5' invokingSection4S2oftheCr.P.C,seekingquashingofproceedings in S.T.C. No. 52 of 2Ol9 pend'ing on the hle of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal. 2. Since all the Criminal Petitions are questioning the proceed,ings against them in the same case' i'e'' STC No'52 of 2OL9' all the petitions are disposed off by way of this Common Judgment'

3. A complaint was hled by the District l'egal Metrolory Offrcer' Legal Metrologr, who is an officer appointed under S' 14 of the Irgal Metrologr Act, 2OO9 (hereinafter' 'the Act") and is an authorized ofhcer to frle the complaint against ttre Accused under Rule 28 of 2 the A.P Legal Metrologz (Enforcement) Rules, 2OlL, by virtue of the General Authorization issued by the Controller, Legal Metrolory, Ap, Hyderabad, vide G.O.Ms. No. 10 CA, F&CS (CS-III) Dept., dated I.4.2O11, reacl with head office Memo No. 6950/TL/2011-3 dated IO.5.2012.

4. The complaint in S.T.C. No. 52 of 2OI9 has been frled against Accused (A1) (Managing Director of M/s paired onli,e Technologies P Ltd.); ,A'2 (Managing Director of M/s Instakart Services pvt. Ltd); 43, A4., A5, and ,46 (the Directors of M/s Instakart Services pvt. Ltd); and A7 (Senior Manager and person Incharge of M/s Instakart Services Rrt. Ltd), alleging contravention of Sections 1g and 36 of the Act, and Rule 4, Rule 6(1)(a), (aa), Rule 6{21 ancl Rule 18(1) of the Legal Metrologz (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2olt (hereinafter, "the Rules, 20L 1").

5. The genesis of the complaint is the inspection conducted by the District Legal Metrologr Officer on 3.7.2018, at zr.bout 6:30 pm in the trading premises of M/s Instakart services Rrt Ltd, Survey No. 696, GundlaPochampally vinage, Medchat-Markajgiri District. At the time of i,spection, 47 was present and condur:ting business transactions in the said premises' The inspection revealed that A7 possessed, d,isplayed, and exposed for sale 135 retail packages of "Plron Smart' Accessories, Sono, Bluetooth speaker' packed by M/s Paired Online Technologies (P) Ltd'' Plot No'33-34' Dwarka Sector 28, Delhi-11o075, and the said packages did not bear the statutory declaration of l)Name and address of the manufacturer; 2)Country of Origin; and 3) Person Incharge or office address for consumer complaints. Hence, it was concluded that the packages violated Rule 4, Rule 6(1)(a), (aa), Rule 6(2) and Rule 1'8(1) of the Rules, 2011. Further, the accused, by possessing and displaying the packages for sale in their trading premises' thereby contravened S.18(1) of the Act r/w Rule 6(1)(a), (aa) and Rule 6(2) of the Rules' 20ll,andthesameispunishableunder5.36(1)oftheAct.

6. During the inspection, the District Legal Metrologr Offrcer-P out of the 135 SatSranarayan a, seized 2 defective packages frorn AT ' and the remaining 133 packages were kept under safe custody in the premises. under S'15 of the Act' under the cover of a panchanama in the presence of mediator LW3' A copy of the same was handed over to A7 onthe spot with proper acknowledgment' ' ;r

7. The complaint also specifres that, prior to the liling of 4 complaint, Notice No. 142/PC/2018-19 dated 3.7.2018 was served on the Company-M/s Instakart, through an e-mail. The Company replied to the notice on 19.12.2018, stating that the seizure report already been concerned Brand/Seller/Manufacturer, and that in terms of Rr-rle 18(1) of the Rules, 2017, the concerned Brand/Seller/Manufacturer 1S responsible. The Company also requested the withdrawal of the notice and for no further action to be taken against the Company and its Directors. The Company's request was rejected vide Office Letter No. 142lPCl2018-19 dated 26.12.2Ot8. llhereafter, the complaint was hled in the Court.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on beha_lf of the petitioners submits that: 1) The petitioners are arrayed as accused, making them vicariously liable on behalf of M/s Instakart Serwices Rrt. Ltd. However, the company is not made as an acr:used, afld as such, the question of prosecuting the petitioners does not anse. 5 I 2)Mls Instakart Services Rrt. 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 penal provisions of the Act are attracted. g. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on beha-lf of the tegal Metrolory Oflicer/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 t]le company, are involved. in the 'd,elivery' 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 coflrmerce in weights, measures and other goods, which are distdbuted by weight, measure, or number, and for matters connected wit]. the issues which are specifically 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 Rule 4, Rule 6(1)(a), (aa), Rule 6(21 and 6 Rule 18(1) of the Rules,2oll. For the sake of convenience, Section 18 and Section 2(1) of the Act are extracted hereunder: " 1 8. Declarations on pre-packaged commodities.- (1) No person shall malufacture, pack, sel1, import, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged commodiry* unless such package is in such standard quantities or number and bears thereon such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Any advertisement mentioning the retail sale price of a pre- packaged commodit5r sha-ll contain a declaration as to the net quantity or number of the commodit5r contained in the package in such form and malner as may be prescribed." "2(l) "pre-packaged commodit5/ means a commodity which without the purchaser being present is placed in a package of whatever nature, whether sealed or not, so that the product contained therein has a pre-determined quantity;

12. Section 18 lays down strict requirements for. the sale and advertisement of pre-packaged commodities to ensure transparency and consumer protection. It prohibits any person from manufacturing, packing, selling, importing, distributing, delivering, offering, exposing, or possessing for sa_le any pre-packaged commodity unless it complies with prescribed standards. These standards inchrde ensuring tJ:at the package contains a specified quantity or number of the commodity and that it clearly displays all mandatory declarations and particulars in the prescribed manner. Additionally, if an advertisement mentions the retail sale price of a 7 pre-packaged commodity, it must also include a declaration regarding the net quantity or number of items in tlle package' following the prescribed format' These provisions are designed to prevent misleading practices' ensllre uniformity in trade' and protect consumer interests' Section 18 of the Act deals with the pre- packaged commodities, and pre-packaged commodit5r has been defined under Section 2(1) 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 speci{ic terminolory to regulate pre- packaged commodities at each stage of their commercia-l lifecycle.Section 18 applies' alnong others' to manufacturers or sellers of the product: The fouowing group of words used in section 18 of the Act, have to be understood, basing on the intent of the legislature in enacting the law: 1) Ivtanufacture: Involves producing or assembling a product that becomes a commodity ready for sale' The term Manufacturer' is defrned under Section 2(i) of the Act' 2) Pack: Refers to placing a product into a package, by the manufacturer/Seller, that complies with legal metrologr standards. 3) Sell: Involves the transfer of ownership in exchange for money or other consideration. 4) "import" with its grammatical variations an,C cognate expressions, meatls bringing into India from a place outside India. 5) Distribute: Covers the supply of such commodities to retailers, wholesalers, other businesses for further sale to consumers or to the consumers directly through online sale. 6) Deliver: Encompasses physically handing over or transporting the product to buyers, retailers, or distributors, including through couriers and e-commerce logistics. 7) Offer: Involves the process of making the product available for sale or trade. 8) Expose (for sale): Refers to displaying a product in a way that signals its availabilitSr for purchase, r,r,hether on store shelves, in showcases, or through online listings. 9) Possess (for sale): Means having control or custody of a pre-packaged commodity with the intent to sell, covering retailers, wholesalers and distributors. t't I

14. The Act ensures that every stage of a commodit5r's commercial lifecycle, from manufacture to final sale, is subject to legal scrutiny, which helps prevent deceptive practices and protects consumer interests.

15. The petitioners are Managing Director/Directors/Manager of M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. The agreement between M/s' Instakart Seryices Pvt. Ltd. and Flipkart Internet Private Limited, the company selling the product, is an agreement . for logistic services. The Exhibit A to the agreement specifies the services to be executed by the company, M/s Instakart, which include: i. Pickup of shipments from the company's warehouses' ii.CoD/PP(CashonDelivery/Prepaid)facilityacrossallpincodesserved by I nstakar tfor delivery. iii. Reverse pickup from end customers' iv. ERp integration for better transaction visibility and monitoring

16. M/s.Instakart,s services are for providing logistic services and not amenable to the provisions under the Legal Metrolory Act' SectionlsoftheActappliestotheentitiesdirectlyinvolvedinthe process of manufacturing, packing, selling, importing or distributing, pre-packed commodities and none of these include the 10 togistic providers. The job of M/s'Instakart is only to transport the goods, and it is, in no manner, 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 proclucts to them through the logistics providers' such as M/s Instakart Services' |T.Theterm.deliver,usedinSection18oftheActrr:ferstotheact of transferring the goods as part of sale' The logistics company' M/s.Instakart is not involved' in the sal'e of the goods' It is either Flipkart or the malufacturer who sells the goods The logistics company, i.e., M/s. Instakart, conlines its services to providing transport of the goods/products' For the said reason' the logistics company will not fatl within the term 'deliver' as mentioned in Section l8 of tlre Act.

18. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners' who are part of M/s. Instakart Services Private Limited are in aly manner involvecl with the process of labeling or packing the commodity. The goods found in the warehouses of M/s' Instakart are meant for transportation. Nowhere in the complaint, has the a 11 complainant mentioned, that the company has anything to do with tJle product, ottter than to transport them' in accordance with the agreement with FliPkart' 19. The petitioners are also alleged of contravening Rule 4' Rule 6(1)(a), (aa), Rule 6(21 and Rule 18(1)of the Rules' 2oll' Rule 4 reads as follows: *4. Regulation for pre-pac\in^s onl,sale-etc' of commodities in packaged form' 'bn'ona fiom the commencement of these ntles, no persorl tt*it p"-po"k or ca11se or permit to be pre' di"taaution or deliuery unless packed ono "o^'io1iiffi'"i-1"' the package i^ *lii"i"'li' .,.,*itai'a is nre'oacked' a lcibel ts declaraions'o' i'" required to be securelg affixed""1a" """n made under these rules' Explanatton'-Tlw eistence of packages tt-tithout th.e declaration pa"Jlnltinih" ;"""f"'turer's oremises shnll not be constnted oi l""titittitn of tlese' rulei and it shnll be of retait "ou "';;'i;g"; bauino the premi'ses of ensured that il manufacture' toi' it*#*it "ii"itit " - thitl tw u e ie cl ar ation of retail sale pnce on them as reqttired in thi-s rule'" From a reading of Rule 4 and ttre explanation thereto' it indicates that, it is for the manufacturer to label the product' giving the details, which are required to be mentioned in accordance with logistics comPanies are not the Legal Metrologi Act' 2O09' The not engage, either in Pre- covered under Rule 4 since theY do labeling the packing the product by the manufacturer' or ln

20. 12 contents on the goods packed by the manufacturer. llhe 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 involvecl in the pre- packing process

21. Sub-Rule (1)(a) of Rule 6 of the Rules,2OlT reads as follows: " 6. Declaration to be made on eaery package: (1)(a) the name and address of the manufacturer, or where the manufachtrer is not the packer, the name ond address of tlrc manufacfitrer and packer and for any imported package the name and address of tlrc importer shall be mentioned on euery package. (1)(a): "Euery package shall bear thereon or on the label securelg afftxed thereto, a definite, plain and cottspicuous declaratiott made in accordqnce uith the prouisions of this cha.pter as, to - (a) the name and addres.s of the manufacturer, or u)here the manufachffer is not the packer, the name and address of the manufactilrer and packer an.d for ang imported package the n,zme and address oJ- the importer shall be mentioned."

22. Rule 6(1)(a) mandates that every package must <lisplay a label with the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or importer. This requirement applies only to entities involved in the production, packing, or import of goods, ensuring consumer transparency and regulatory compliance.Logistics corrrpanies do not manufacture, pack, or import goods-they merely l-ransport pre- .'e,r.1.'.!wi" I 13 packaged commodities. Since they have no role in affixing labels or ensuring declarations on the packaging, Rule 6(1)(a) does not impose any obligations on them.

23. Sub-Rule (l)(aa) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2011 reads as follows: "6.Declaration to be mad.e on euery package: (1)(a) th-e name and oddress of the manufacturer, or ii.r. iti *onufachrer is not the packer, the name and _old.ress of the manufacturer and packer and f2, 1! imported package tte iame oi.a--'odar."" "i tii-t^pri* shall be mentioned on euery package. (1)(aa):"The -name of the^country of origin or manufacture or -mentioned assemblg in case of imported prodicts shall be on the package.,, 24- As per Rule 6(1)(aa), no person sha_ll manufacture, assembre, or import any product for sale, distribution, or delivery unless the package bears a clear decraration of the country of origin or manufacture or assembly, as required under Rute 6(1)(aa).However, logistics companies as they do not engage in the manufacturing, assembling, or importing process, nor do they have control over labeling. Their role is limited to the transportation of goods, and they are not responsible for ensuring compliance with packaging declarations, hence, they are not covered under Rule 6(1)(aa). 14

25. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2O11 reads as follows: " 6. Declaration to be made on euery package: (1)(a) th.e name and address of the monufacture4 or u-there the manufac:hrer is not the packer, the name and address of the manufachrer and packer and for any imported package the name ond address of the importer shall be men-tioned on euery package. (2) Euery po.ckage shall bear tLrc namq address, telephone number, e mail address, Lf auailable, of the person uho can be ctr the office tthich con be. contacted, in case of consumer complaints.''

26. The Rule marrdates displaying of name, telephone number, or e-mail numbers, if available of the person, who can 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 name and address etc., does not arise.

27. Sub-Rule t of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011 reads a.s follows: "78, Proulsions relating to utholesqle dealer and retail dealers: (1) No roholesale dealer or retail dealer or importer shall sell, distibute, deliuer, display or store for sale ang commoditg tn the packaged form unless the package complies uith in all respects, the prouisions of the Act and these n es."

28.From a reading of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011,extrzrcted above, it is clear that the Rule applies to wholesale dealer and retail dealers. Even according to the complainant, the logistics compary is neither 15 a retailer, nor a wholesaler. For the said reasons, Rule 18 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 complaint.

29. Notice was sent to M/s.Instakart Services Private Limited through an e-mail. The notice of the complairlant does not refer to the names of any of these petitioners. According to the notice addressed by the complainant, the company, M/s.Instakart, is only mentioned. Further, no role is specifrcally attributed td any of the petitioners herein. In the absence of making the company as an accused, prosecuting the petitioners is erroneous.

30. In MD Castrol (Iadiat Limited v. State of Karnatakal, the Hon'lcle Supreme court quashed criminal proceedings against the Managing Director due to the absence of any specif,rc allegations 0 -{ about his responsibility in the company's business or operations. ' potay t scc 275 16

31. In Himanshu v. B.Shivamurthy2, the Honble Supreme Court held that prosecuting the directors of the corrpany, without implicating the'company' is unsustainable.

32. The provr.sions of Legal Metrologr Act arrd Rules thereunder, are not attracted in case of the logistics company, M/s.Instakart. Further, the company M/s.Instakart Services private Limited is not made an accused. For both reasons, the Criminal pr:titions deserve to be allowed.

33. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioneirs/Accused in STC No.52 of 201.9 on the hle of XXII Metropolita:r Magistrate at Medchal, are hereby quashed.

34. Accordingly. a-11 Crimina_t Petitions are allowed. Ij ro, //rRUE copy, sd/- P' PA3+tilYqREt,SfRiX /.- ,i\ \ lj becrroru oFFrcER i iff iI, ll"J;:ff[1i,lY.1g"trate at Medcha r District 3. Two CC. t" it," pri.Metropolitan Magistrate Medchal "" " :ljZit g"Hi,," -_ c. I wo CD Copies sh Maddy, Advocate tOpUCl Karn/Nsk 6 Prosecutor, High court ro'. i'nl strtu or reransana at ' 1zots1 a scc zsz -=--rir?3@ HIGH COURT DATED:21 lO2t2O2S thE \r /C o o 2 5 ;:;it ZBZ5 o( z COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos .4544, SO1l, 5024, SO2S, SO2 aF '-ai"rril. t 6 and 5027 of 2019 ALLOWING ALL THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS @N 'XM