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. 45 of 2019, of the fite of the Honourable Additional XXll fi/etropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District against the Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 in Crl.P.No.4807 of 2019 Petition under Seclion 482 of Cr.P.C praying that n 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. l'.1o. 45 of 2019, of the file of the Honourable Additional XXll N/etropolitan Magistrat: at Medchal District, including the appearanoe of the Accused till the disposal of the Main euash Petition l.A. NO: 4 OF 2021 in Crl.P.No.4807 of 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that irr the circumstances staled in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,th,: High Court may be pleased to receive the FORM No. DIR-12 as a part of Crimiral Petition No. 4807 of 2019. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4808 OF 2019 Between: Abhy Maheswari, Aged about 42 years. Occ. Director. M/s lnstakart Services Pvt. Ltd. Sy. No.696, Gudla Pochampally Village, Medchal- Malkanjgiri District. Rl/o. H.No.469, Malviya Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. ...PETITIONERYACCUSED.5 AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Court at Hyderabad 2. The District Legal Metrology Officer, Medchal- Malkanjgiri District. ...RESPONDENT 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. 45 of 2019, ol the file of the Honourable Additional XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District, against th'}e Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 in Crl.P.No.4808 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. 45 of 2019, on the file of the Honourable Additional XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District, including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4809 OF 2019 Between: Anil Kumar Reddy, Aged about 36 years. Occ: Senior Manager. M/s lnstakart Services Pvt. Ltd. Sy. No.696, Gudla Pochampally Village. Medchal- Malkanjgiri District.B.28.prakruthivas.opp AFA dundigal, Annaram, Gummadidal, Sangareddy AND ... PETITIONERYACCUSED.T 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad 2. The District Legal Metrology Officer, MedchaF Malkanjgiri District 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. 45 of 2019, of the file of the ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Honorable Additional XXll Metropolitan lr/lagistrate at Medichal District, against the Petition e r/Accu sed l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 in Crl.P.No.4809 of 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying thet in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitior,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in S.T.C. No. 45 of 2019, of the file of the Honorable Additional XXII Metropolitan Magistrate at IVledichal District including the app(:arance of the Accused till the dispo:;al of the Main Quash Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4810 OF 201 I Between: Dinesh Varma, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Director, M/s lns.akart Services pvt. Ltd, Sy. No.696, Gudla Pochampally Village, Medchal- Malkanjgiri District '145 SF Sector.4s Gorgon 1 22003 1+R ..PE-TITIONER/ACCUSED-4 AND

1. The State of Telangana. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Hi3h Court at Hyderabad 2. The District Legal Metrology Officer, Medchal- I\/alkanj,liri District ...RESPONDI=NTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiorr, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 45 of :2019, of the file of the Honourable Additional XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchat District, against the Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 in Crl.P.No 4810 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. l.lo. 45 of 2019, of the file of the Honourable Additional XXll Metropolitan Magistrzte at Medchal District including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main euash Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 502I 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- Matkanjgiri District Fl/o A-02, New Gokul Plaza CHS Ltd, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (east), Mumbai, Maharastra - 400101 ...PETI'TIONERYACCUSED.6 AND

1. State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Court at Hyderabad 2. The District Legal Metrology Officer,, tuledchal- tt/alkanjgiri 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..45 of 2019, of the file of the Honourable Additional XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District against the PetitioneriAccused l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 in Crl.P.No.502 8 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. 45 of 2019, of the fi[e of the XXll Honourable XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rajesh Maddy, Advocate for the Petitioner in all Criminal petitions and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in all Criminal petitions. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURT:NDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.454O, 4807, 4808, 4gorg,4810 and 5O2g oF 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Criminal Petition No. 4540 of 2Ol9 is fiiect by Accused No.3, Criminal Petition No. 48O7 of 2OI9 is hted'l.,1. Accused No. 2, Criminal Petition No.4UOS of 2OI9 is hled by Accused No. 5, Criminal Petition No.4809 of 2Ol9 is filed b,r Accused No. 7, Criminal Petition No.4B10 of 2Ol9 is hled by Ar:cused No. 4, and Criminal Petition No.5O28 of 2Ol9 is frled b-1, Accused No. 6, invoking Section 482 of the Cr.p.C, seeking quashing of proceedings in S.T.C. No. 45 of 2Ol9 pending <.,n the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medcha_l. 2. Since all the Criminal petitions are questioning the proceedings against them in the same case, i.t:., STC No.45 of 2079, all the petitions are disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.

3. A complaint was filed by the District Legal IUctrologr Officer, Legal Metrologr, who is an ofhcer appointed urder S.14 of the Legal Metrolory Act, 2009 (hereinafter, "the l.ct") and is an authorLed of{icer to lile the complaint against the Accused under I I i I 2 Rule 28 of the A.P Legal Metrologr (Enforcement) Rules, 2Oll, by virtue of the General Authorization issued by the Controller, Legal Metrologr, AP, Hyderabad, vide G.O.Ms. No. 10 CA, F&CS (CS-III) Dept., dated 1.4.2O11, read with head ofhce Memo No. 6950 /Tt l2O 1 1-3 dated rO.5.2Ot2.

4. The complaint in S.T.C. No. 45 of 2019 has been filed against Accused (A1) (Managing Director of M/s Freewill Sports Pvt Ltd.); A2 (Managing Director of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd); ,{3, A4, A5, and A6 (the Directors of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd); and A7 (Senior Manager and Person Incharge of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. 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, 2Ol1 (hereinafter, "the Rules, 2OlI")

5. The genesis of the complaint is the inspection conducted by the District Legal Metrologr Ofhcer on 3.7.2OL8, at about 5:50 pm in the trading premises of M/s Instakart Services Pvt 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 3 inspection revealed tlr.at A7 possessed, displayed, and exposed for sale 525 retail packages of "Nivia" Tummy Twister, Dynamic with Magnetic Platform,manufactured by M/s Freewill Sports Pvt Ltd., Works-372, Leather Complex, Kapurthala lload, Jalandhar- I44O27, and the said packages did not b<:ar 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(l) of the Rules,2011. Further, the accused, by possessing and displaying the pac:llages for sale in their trading premises, thereby contravened Section 18(1) of the Act r/w Rule 6(2) of the Rules , 2O11, and the sarne is punishable under Section 36(i) of the Act.

6. During the inspection, the District Legal Metrologr Officer-P SatSranarayana, seized 2 defective packages from A7, out of the 525, and the rcmaining 523 packages were kept under safe custody in the premises under S.15 of the Act, trrLder the cover of a panchanama in the presence of mediators LW..; 3 and 4. A copy of the same was handed over to A7 on the srpot with proper acknowledgment 4

7. The complaint also specifies that, prior to the filing of the complaint, Notice No. 143/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 selzure report had already been sent . to the concerned Brand/Seller/Manufacturer, and that in terms of Rule 18(1) of the Rules, 2O11, the concerned Brand/Seller/Manufactureris responsible. The Company also requested the withdrawal of the rbtice and for no further action to be taken against the Company and its Directors. The Company's request was rejected vide OfTice Letter No. 142lPCl2018-19 dated 26.12.2018. Thereafter, the complaint was filed in the Court.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that: 1) The petitioners a_re 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, and as such, the question of prosecuting the petitioners does not anse. 2) Mls Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd is a Iogistic company, which acts as a transporter or courier in between manufacturer 5 and the purchaser of the propert5r. TL.e petitioners have nothing 1.o do with the manufacturing process, as such, none of the penal provisions of the Act aro attracted.

9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Legal Metrolory 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' ,tt the goods, the violations of the Act are attracted.

10. The Legal Metrolory Act was enacted in the year 2010, to enforce the standards of weight and measures, t-egulate trade and commerce in lveights, measures and other 51oods, which are distributed by r,veight, measure or number and for matters connected with the issues which are specihcally mentioned under the provisions of the Act.

11. The violations, as alleged in the complirint, are under Sections 18 and 36 of the Act, and under Rules 4, 6(2) and 18(1) of the Rules,2011. For the sake of convenience, Section 18 and Section 2(1) of the Act are extracted hereunder: " 18. Declarations on pre-packaged commodities.- (1) No person shall manufacture, pack, sell, impo-t, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged 6 commodity unless such package is in such standard quartities or numbei and bears thereon such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Any advertisement mentioning the retail sa-le price of a pre- packaged commodity shall contain a declaration as to the net q.r"t tity or number of the commodity contained in the package in such form and manner as may be prescribed." "2(l) "pre-packaged commodity" 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 J from manufacturing, packing, selling, importing, distributing, d.elivering, offering, exposing, or possessing for sale any pre- packaged commodity unless it complies with prescribed standards. These standards include ensuring that the package contains a specified quantity or number of the commodity and that it clearly displays all mandatory declarations and particula-rs in the prescribed manner. Additionally, if an advertisement mentions the retail sale price 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. These provisions are designed to prevent misleading practices, ensure uniformity in trade, and protect consumer interests. 7 Section 18 of the Act deals with the pre-pacl<aged commodities, and pre-packaged commodity has been define,l under Section 2(l) of the Act, as cxtracted above. Since the prodr.c:t 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 1,3 of the Act uses specific term;nologr to regulate pre-packaged r:ommodities at each stage of their commercial lifecycle. section 18 applies, among others, to rnanufacturers or sellers of the product: The following group ,tf words used in section 18 of the Act have to be understood, basing on the intent of the legislaturr: in enacting the law: 1) Manufacture: Involves producing or assernbling a product that becornes a commodier ready for sale. The term 'Manufacturer'is dehned under Section 2(i) of the Act. 2) Pack: Refers to placing a product into a package, by the manulacturer/Seller, that complies with legal metrolory standards. 3) Seil: Involves the transfer of ownership in exchange for money or other consideration. 4) "import" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means bringing into India frrtrn a place outside India. 8 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. 7l 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 availability for purchase, whether 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. L4. The Act ensures that every stage of a commodity'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 afe Managing Director/Directors/Manager of M/slnstakart Services hrt. Ltd. The agreement between M/s Instakart Services Rrt. Ltd. and Flipkart Internet Private Limited, the company selling the product, is an agreement for logistic o servlces The trxhibit A to the agreement specifies the services to be executed by the company, M/s Instakart, whi.ch include: Pickup ol shipments from the compaly's warehouses. COD/PP (Cash on Delivery/Prepaid) facility across all pin codes served b1. Instakart for delivery. Reverse lrickup from end customers. trRP integration for better transaction visibilitl iend monitoring 1V.

16. Instakart's services are for providing logistic services and not amenable to the provisions under the Lellzrl Metrolory Act. Section 18 of tl're Act applies to the entities dLrectly involved in the process of manufacturing, packing, selling, importing or distributing, prt'-packed commodities and nonr: of these include the logistic provlders. The job of M/s Instakart is only to transport the goods, and it is, in no manner, involved in the labeling or paclilng the goods sent by the manufacturer. The consumers plerce their orders on Flip kart, 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 ,A.ct refers to the act of transferring the goods AS part of sa..e. The logistics company, M/s Instakart is not involved in the sale of the goods. I 10 It is either Flipkart or the manufacturer who sells the goods. The logistics company, i.e., M/s Instakart, conhnes its services to providing transport of the goods/products. For the said reason, the logistics company will not fall within the term deliver, as mentioned in Section 18 of the 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 any manner involved with the process of labeling or packing the ) commodity. The goods found in the warehouses of M/s Instakart are meant for tralsportation. Nowhere in the complaint, has the complainant mentioned, that the company has anything to do with the product, other than to transport them, in accordance with the agreement with Flipkart.

79. The petitioners are also alleged of contravening Rule 4, Rule 6(2), and Rule 18(1) of the Rules ,2OII. Rule 4 reads as follows: "4. Regulation for pre-packing and sale etc. of commodittes in packaged form. - On and from the commencement of these rules, no person shall pre-pack or cause or permit to be pre- packed ang commodity for sale, dbtribution or deliuery unless the package in whbh the commoditg is pre-packed, a label is securelg affued and such declarations as are required to be made under these ruLes. Explanation.-The existence of packages without the declaration of retail sale prbe within the manufacturer,s premises shall not be construed as a uiolation of these rules 11 and it shall. be ensured that all packag'?s leautng the premises o.f manufacturer for their destinanion shall haue declaration of retctil sale pice on them os required in this rule. "

20. From a rr:ading of Rule 4 and the 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 the Legal Metrologr Act, 2t)09. The logistics companies are not covered under Rule 4 since they do not engage, either ;n pre-packing the product by Jre manufacturer, or rn Iabeling the contents on the goods packed by the manufacturer. 'lhe duty of the logistics compzuty is confined to transporting the goods, and nowhere is it allegerl in the complaint that the petitior.rers' company, M/s Instakart Services Private Limited is involved in the pre-packing process.

27. Sub-Rule 2 o1 Rule 6 of the Rules,2Oll rezr<ls as follows: "6.Declaration to be made on euery package: 11)(a) the name and oddress of the manufacturer, or where the n', a.nufacturer is not the packt,r, the name and address of the marrufachtrer and packer and Jor ang imported package the name and address of the importer shall be mentioned on euery package- (2) Euery package shall bear the name, address, telephone numbe1 e ma iL address, if auoilable, of the person utho can be or the office u,ltich can be, contacted, in case <>f consumer compLaints. " I 12

22. The Rule mandates 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 linding label on the packages meant for transport, with said details of name and address etc., does not arise.

23. Sub-Rule 1of Rule 18 of the Rules,2O11 reads as follows: .) "78. Proaisions relating to utholesale dealer and. reta d.ealers: (1 ) No whoLesale dectler or retoil dealer or importer shalt sell, di.stibute, deliuer, di.splag or store for sale ang commod.itg in the packaged form unless the package compli_es uith in all respects, the prouisions of the Act and these rules."

24. From a reading of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2O11, extracted above, it is clear that the Rule applies to wholesale dealer and retail dealers. Even according to the complainant, the logistics company is neither a retailer, nor a wholesa_ler. 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. '13

25. Notice was sent to M/s Instakart Servit:es Private Limited through an e-rnail. The notice of the complai.Lernt does not refer to the narnes of any of these petitioners. According to the notice addressed by the complainant, the company, .M/s Instakart, 1S only mentioned. Further, no role is specihca-l\'attributed to any of the petitioners herein. In the absence of making the company as an accused, prosecuting the petitioners is er:oneous.

26. In MD Castrol (India) Limited v. State of Karnatakal, the ,/ Hon'ble Supren.re Court quashed criminal prrceedings against ) the Managing Director due to the absence of any specific ( I allegations abotrt his responsibility in the comf,any's business or operations.

27. In Himanshu v. B.Shivamurthyz, the Honble Supreme Court held that prosecuting the directors r>f the company, without implicating the'company' is unsustainable.

28. The provisions of Legal Metrologr Act and It'ules thereunder, are not attracted in case of the logistics company, M/s Instakart. Further, the company M/s Instakart Services I'r-ivate Limited is '^por8y tt scc 27s '(2019) 3 SCC 797 14 not made an accused. For both reasons, the Criminal Petitions deserve to be allowed.

29. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused in STC No.45 of 2Ol9 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, are hereby quashed

30. Accordingly, all Criminal Petitions are allowed. //TRUE COPYII DEPUTY Sd/. MOHD. MAIL STRAR RE9 \\/ SECTION OFFICER i) To,

1. The XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buitdings at Hyderabad[OUT]

3. One CC to Sri Rajesh Maddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos .4540, 4807, 4808, 4809, 4810 and 5028 of 2019 /.1-11,r. s iar ( A 4 ?2 APB 2U6 J D f c,TDtr \, v z o at' + /'' /: liJlir \ ALLOWING ALL THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS. qE,