The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P .C praying that ir 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. 48 cf 2019, of the file of the Honourable XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal Drstrict including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 50'i9 OF 2019 Between: Nishant Vermon, Ageci about 39 years, Managing Director, M/s. lnstakrt Services Pvt. Ltd., Sy.No. 696, Gudla Pochampally Village, Medchal - Malkanjgiri District. R/o. Tower No. 9, Flat No. 702, Golf Course Road, Near lBlS Hotei, Sector - 53, Sikanderpur, Haryana - 1220002. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 AND

1. State of Telangana. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad 2. The District Legal Metrology Officer, Medchal - Malkanlgirr District. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the :ircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No. 48 of 2019. of the file of the ...RESPONDENTS/RI:SPONDENTS Honourable XXll MetroPolitan Petitioner/Accused Magistrate at Medchal District, against the r.A. NO: 2 0F 2019 in Crl.P.No.S 019 of 2019 PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P,Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High court may "i"r..a to qrant stay of all further proceedings in S.T.Q.No. 48 of 2019, of the file fXtt Metropotitan Masistrate at r\46dchal District, including the ;i;;i;;;;,rure Ipiurrrn"u of the Accused tili the disposal of the Main Quash Petition -be I.A. NO: 4 OF 2O21 in Cr1.P.No.5019 of 2019 PetitionunderSection4B2otCr.P-Cprayingthatinthecircumstances to-receive the FoRM No. DIR-12 as a part of Criminal Petition No statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe ;i;;; 5019/2019. CRIMINAL P ETITION NO: 5029 OF 2019 Between: Dinesh Varma, Aged about 49 years, occ. Director. M/s lnstakart Services Pvt. Ltd' si. G616 GudtI pochampatty vittage Medchal- Matkanjgiri District R/o 145, sF, Sector 45, Gurgaon-120003, H.R ...'ET.T,ONER/ACCUSED4 AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad' 2.tneDistrictLegalMekologyOfficer,Medchal-MalkanjgiriDistrict ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr,P,Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may O" pf"r."a to quash the proceedings in S T C No- 48 of 2019' of the file of the ilnouraOte Xill Metropolitan Migistrate at Medchal District, against the Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 in Crl .P.No.5029 of 20'|9 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 "i.r*o to oram stay of all further proceedings in s.T.c. No. 4g of 2019, of the file ixtt Metropotitan Magistrate at Medchal District incruding the ;i;;H;;;r;;ote ,pp",'"n""oftheAccusedtilithedisposaloftheMainQuashPetition. CRIMINAL P ETITION NO: 5030 OF 2019 Between Ashish Kumar Gupta, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Director, Nr/s lnstakrt services Pvt. Ltd.. sy. No.696, Gudla Pochampally Village, Medchal- Malkanjgiri [listrict R/o A-02, New Gokul Plaza CHS Ltd, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), ilumbai, Maharastra - 4oo1o1. ...perlloxrn/A.cusED 6 AND

1. State of Telangana. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ,at Hyderabad 2. The District Legal Metrotogy Officer. Medchal- Malkan.igir' Disttict ...RESPONDENT/R ESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the l-ligh Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 48 of 20 19, of the file of the Honourable XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal Districr.. against the Petitioner/Accused. t.A. NO : 2 OF 2019 in Crl.P.No.503 of 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, ihe Figh Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in S.T.C. No 48 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 f)etition CRIMINAL P ETITION NO: 503'l OF 2019 Between: Abhy Maheswari. Aged about 42 years, Occ- Director M/s lnstakrt services Pvt. Ltd., Sy. No.696, Gudla Pochampally Village, Medchal- Malkanjgiri District R/o H.NO.469, Malviya Nagar' sanganer' Jaipur-302011 ...pETrroNERyAccusED-s AND '1 . State of Telangana. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad 2. The District Legal Metrology Officer, Irledchal- Malkajgiri District ...RESPONDEN I/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the :ircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S T.C. No. 48 of 2019, of the file of the Honourable XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal District, against the Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 in Crl.P.No.5031 ot 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in S.T.C. No. 48 of 2019. of the file of the Honourab.le 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 Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rajesh Maddy, Advocate for the Petitioners in all Criminal Petitions and Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents in all Criminal Petitions. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINALPETITIONNos'456O'5016'5019'5029'5O3Oand5O31 oF 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1 Criminal Petition No. 4560 of 2Ol9 is filed by Accused No'3' Criminal Petition No 5O16 of 2019 is frled by Accused No' 7, Crimina-l Petition No'5019 of 2Ol9 is fi1ed by Accused No' 2' Criminal Petition No'5029 of 2Ol9 is filed by Accused No' 4' Criminal Petition No'5030 of 2Ol9 is frled by Accused No' 6' and Criminal Petition No'5031 of 2Ol9 is filed by Accused No' 5' invokingsection4S'.2ofthecr.P.C,seekingquashingofproceedings in S.T.C. No. 48 c>f 2Ol9 Pending on the hle of XXII MetroPolitan Magistrate, Medcha-i'

2. Since all the Criminal Petitions are questioning the proceedings against them in the same case' i'e'' STC No'48 of 2Ol9' all the petitions are disposed off by way of this Common Judgment-

3. A complaint was hled by the District trga-l Metrologr Oflicer' Legal Metrologz, u'ho is an offrcer appointed under S' l't of the kgal Metrologr Act, 2OO9 (hereinafter' "the Act") and is an authorized i 2 ofhcer to file the complaint against the Accused under Rule 28 of the A.P Legal Metrologr (Enforcement) Rules, 2}ll, 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 office Memo No. 6950/T1l2011-3 dated \ to.5.20t2.

4. The complaint in S.T.C. No. 48 of 2079 has been filed against Accused (A1) (Managing Director of M/s Cad Dies and Tooling); ^A2 (Managing Director of M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd); A3, A4, A5, and A6 (the Directors of M/s Instakart Services hrt. 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), 6(3), and Rule 18(1) ol the Legal Metrologr (Packaged Comrnodities) Rules, 2oll (hereinafter, 'the Rules, 20r1"l.

5. The genesis of the complaint is the inspection conducted by the District legal Metrolog. Oflicer on 3.7.2OL8, at about 4:15 pm in the trading premises of M/s Instakart Serwices Pvt Ltd, Survey No. 696, Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 3 At the time of inspection, A7 was present and condu<:ting business transactions in tl-re said premises. The inspectiorr revealed that A7 possessed, dispkryed, and exposed for sa19 5 retail packages of "Signora Care MAMIMA Mixer Grinder", manufactured by M/s Cad Dies & Tooling, Hissar Road, Ambala City-134003, and the said packages did not bear the statutory declaration of the person in- charge or office address for consumer complaints, and that individual sticker has been afhxed for declaration of Month and year of Manufacturing/ packing and retail sale price. Hence, it was concluded that the packages violated Rule 4, Rule 6(2), Rule 6(3) and Rule 18(1) ol the Rules, 2011. Further, the accused, by possessing and clisplaying the packages for sale in their trading premises, thereby contravened S.18(1) of the Act r/w Rule 6(2), 6(3) of the Rules , 2011, and the same is punishable under 5.36(1) of the Act.

6. During the inspection, the District Legal Metrolory Officer-P Satyanarayana, seized the defective packages from A7', under S.15 of the Act, under the cover of a panchanama. A copy of the same was handed over lo A7 on the spot with proper acknowledgment. 4

7. The complaint also specifies that' prior to the hling of the complaint, Notice No' 126/PC l2}l8-lg dated 3'7'2018 was served on the Company-M/s Instakart' through arl e-mail' The Company replied to the notice on l8'12'2ot8' stating that the seizure report already been sent concerned and that in terms of Rule 18(1) of the concerned Brand/Seller/Manufacturer Brand/Seller/Manufacturer' Rules, 2)ll, 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 26.1.2.2O1.a. Thereafter, the Letter No. l42lPCl2Ol8-19 dated comPlaint was hled in the Court' Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners B 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 ar1Se. I I ,,/ 5 2l M/s Instakart Services pvt. Ltd is a logistic company, which acts as a transporter or courier in between manrr-rfacturer and the purchaser of the property. The petitioners ha.ve nothing to dq with the manufacturing process, as such, none of the penal provisions of the Act are attracted.

9. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Legal Metrolory ofhcer/complainant 'a'ould submit ttrat Section 18 of the Act, clearly mentions the word teliver,. Once it is admitted that the petitioners, who are the Dirr:ctors 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 2O10, to enforce the standards of weight and measures, regulare trade and commerce in weights, measures and other goods, which are distributed by weight, measure or number and for matters connected with the issues which are specificaly mentroned under the provisions of the Act. 6 \

11. The violations, as alleged in the compiaint, are under Sections 18 and 36 of the Act, and Rule 4, Rule 6(2), Rule 6(3), and Rule 18(1) of the Rules, 2011. For the sake of convenience, Section 18 and Section 2(l) of the Act are extracted hereunder: " 1 8. Declarations on pre-packaged commodities.- (1) No person shall manufacture, pack, sell, import, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged commodity unless such package is in such standard quantities or number ald 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 commodity shall contain a declaration as to the net quantity 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 commodit5r which without the purchaser being present is placed in a package of whatever nature, whether sealed or not, so that t1le product contained therein has a pre-determined quantity; 1,2. Section 18 lays down strict requirements for the sa,le and advertisement ol pre-packaged commodities to ensure transparency arrd consumer protection. It prohibits any person from manufacturing, packing, selling, importing, distributing, delivering, offering, exposing, or possessing for sale arry 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 ,t -r/ 7 mandatory declarations ald particulars in the prescribed manner. Additionally, if an advertisement mentions the rr:tail 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 prr"'scribed format. These provisions a'I'e designed to prevent misleading practices, ensure uniformity ln trade, and protect consumer interests. Section 18 ol the r\ct rleals 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 1S packed by the manufacturer in the attsence of the purchaser, the details of the package has to be me:ntioned for a purchaser to know about the product.

13. Section 18 of the Act uses specific terminologr tc, regulate pre- packaged commodities at each stage of their cornmercial lifecycle. Section 18 applies, arnong others, to manufacturers or sellers of the product: The follow-ing 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: 8 1) Manufacture: Involves producing or assembling a product that becomes a commoditSr ready for sale. The term 'Manufacturer' is defined 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 and cognate expressions, means bringing into India from a place outside India. 5) Distribute: Covers the supply of such commodities to retailers, wholesa-lers, other businesses for further sale to consumers or to the consumers directly through online sa,le. 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 availabilit5r for purchase, whether on store shelves, in showcases, or through online listings. - o 9) Possess (for sale): Means having control or cusl.ody of a pre-packaged commodity with the intent to sell. covering retailers, wholesalers and distributors.

14. The Act ensllres that every stage of a commodity's commercial lifecycle, from malufacture to final sale, is subject to lega-l scrutiny, which helps prevent deceptive practices and prote<:ts consumer interests.

15. The petitioners are Managing Director/Directors/Manager of M/slnstakart Services Pvt. Ltd. The agreement t)etween M/s Instakart Services hrt. Ltd. and Flipkart Internel. Private Limited, ttre company selling the product, is an agreemenr- for logistic services. The Exhibit A to the agreement specifies the services to be executed by the company, M/s Instakart, which includt:: Pickup of shipments from the company'S warehouses. COD/ PP (Cash on Delivery/ Prepaid) facility across all pin codes served by Instakart for delivery. Reverse pickup from end customers- ERP integration for better transaction visibility and monitoring

11. lV-

16. M/s.lnstakart's services are for providing logistic services and not amenable to the provisions under the Legal Mt:trologr Act. U 10 \ Section18oftheActappliestotheentitiesdirectlyinvolvedinthe process of manufacturing, packing, selling, importing or distributing, pre-packed commodities and none of these include the logistic providers. The job of M/s lnstakart is only to transport the goods, and it is, in no manner, involved in the Iabeling 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 0f the Act refers to the act of transferring the goods as part of sa-le' 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 serrices 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 0f 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 7 11 manner involvecl with the process of labeling OI packing the commodit5r. The goods found in the warehouses of M/s Instakart a-re meant for l.ralsportation. Nowhere in the complaint, has the complainant mentioned, that the company has a:rything to do with the product, othr:r than to transport them, in accordance with the agreement with Flipkart.

19. The petitioners are also alleged of contravening Rule 4, Rule 6(2), Rule 6(3) and Rule 18(1) of the Rules, 2}tt. Rule 4 reads as follows: "4. Regulation fctr pre-packing and sale etc. of commodities in pa-ckaged fonn. - On and from the commencetnent of these ruLes, no person slnll pre-pack or cause or permit to be pre- packed ang c'ommoditg for sale, distibution or deliuery unless the package in uhich the commodity is pre-pach:ed, a label b securely affixed and such declarations as are requi.ed to be made under lhese rules. Explanation.-'fhe exi.stence of packages withaut tlrc derclaration of retail sale pice uithin the manufachfier's prenises shnll not be constnted as a uiolation of these rules and it shall be ensured th.at all packages leauing the prenises of manufacturer for their destination sllo.,ll haue declaration of retail sale price on them as required in this ru\e."

20. From a reading 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 witlr the tegal Metrologr Act, 2OO9. The logistics companies are not \ 12 \ covered under Rule 4 since they do not engage, either in pre- packing the product by the manufacturer, or ln 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. 2l . Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 6 of the Rules,20l l reads as follows: "6.Declaration to be ms.d.e on eucry package: (1)(a) 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 ang imported package the nome and address of the importer shall be mentioned on euery package. (2) Euery package shall bear the name, address, telephone number, e mail address, if auailable, of the person utho can be or tlLe olfice which can be, contacted, in case of consumer complaints."

22. The Rule mandates displaying of name, telephone numbg or e- mail numbers, if available of the person, who cal 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 13 meant for transport, with said details of narne anc address etc., does not arise.

23. Sub-Rule 3 ol Rule 6 of the Rules, 2011 reads as follows: "Rule 6/3/ It shall not be pennissible to aJfix indiuidual stickers on the package for altertng or making declarations required under these rules: Prouided thctt for reducing the Mo-rimum Retail Pnce (MRP), a sticker uith the reuised lotuer MRP (inclusiue of all taxes) mag be affixed and the same shall not cctuer the MRP declaration made bg the manufacturer or tLe pocker, as the case mag be, on tLLe label of tlrc package.

24. From a reading of Rule 6(3), it is clear that it dot:s not apply to logistics companies, AS they are not involved in the packaging, labeling, or a-lter:rtion of such declarations. Their rolc is limited to transportation, storage, and distribution of pre-packed goods.

25. Sub-Rule l of Rule 18 of the Rules,2011reads as; follows: "78. Proulsions relating to roholesale dealer aa,d retail deqlers: (1) No u.tholesale dealer or retoil dealer or importer shall sell, ,Tistribute, deliuer, displaa or store for sale ang commoditg in the packaged form unless tlu: package complies uith in all respects, the prouisions of tLe Act and these ntles." From a reacling of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2O1 1, extracted above, it is clear that the Rule applies to wholesa-le rlea_ir:r and retail 14 \l \ dealers. Even according to the complainant, the logistics compary is neither 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. Notice was sent to M / s Instakart Services Private Limited through an e-mail. The notice of the complainant 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 specifically attributed to any of the petitioners herein. In the absence of making the compaly as an accused, prosecuting the petitioners is erroneous.

26. In MD Castrol (Indiaf Limited v. State of Karnatakal, the Honlcle Supreme Court quashed crimina-l proceedings against ttle Managing Director due to the absence of any specil-rc allegations about his responsibility in the compaly's business or operations. ' potey n scc zts 15

27. In Himanshu v. B.Shivamu*hy2, the Honble Supreme Court held that prosecuting the directors of the contpany, without implicating the'company, is unsustainable. 28. The provisions of Lega,l Metrologr Act and Rules thereunder, a-re not attracted in case of the logistics company, M/s Instakart. Further, the compa,y M/s Instakart Services privatr: Limited is not made a,-, accused. For both reasons, the criminal petitions deserve to be allowed 29' In the result, the proceedings against ttre petitioners/Accused in STC No.48 of 20 19 on the hle of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate at Medcha.l, are hereby quashed.

30. Accordingly. all Criminal petitions are allowed. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSIISTAilIT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// r:, I \_:_:_- SECTION OFFICER

1. The XXll Additionar Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal Malkajgiri District. 2. Two ccs to the Pubric Prosecutor. state of rerangana, High i;urt Buirdings at Hyderabad[OUT] oT

4. I 9n" CC to Srr Rajesh Maddy, Advocate tOpUCl c-' 4. Two CD Copres " 1zors1 s scc zsz HIGH COURT DATED:21 102,t2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.4560, 5016, 5019, SOZ1, 5030 and 5031 of 2019 TA5l:. l1 Q ) t) 15 ilR , oM I D r)Es ATC t ALLOWING AI-L THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS. @ ,('-w