The Kerala High Court's single-judge bench, led by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, ruled on December 20 that M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.'s request to have criminal charges against it dropped for failing to display the retail sale price on the "principal display panel" of its FROOTI bottle but instead printing it on the bottle's neck did not violate the 2011 Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules. According to Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas,

"As per rule 8(1), every declaration ought to appear on the principal display panel. However, Rule 2(h) defines the principal display panel as the total surface area of the package. An option is also given to the manufacturer to print all the information (both pre-printed and online) either grouped together at one place on the principal display panel, or the pre-printed information grouped together and given at one place and the online information grouped together and given at another place of the principal display panel. In the instant case, the pre-printed information is given on the wrapper encircling the bottle, while the online information, though grouped together, is printed on the neck of the bottle".

The Court additionally stated that Rule 8(2) mandates that, if the bottle is one that can be refilled, the retail sale price for soft drinks and ready-to-serve fruit beverages shall be indicated either on the crown cap or on the bottle or on both.

The Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology purchased a 1.5-liter pre-packed bottle of the fruit-based beverage "Frooti" on March 3, 2014, according to the factual matrix. He sent a notice to the manufacturer the very following day, saying that their product had been created in violation of rules 8(2) and 31(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2011"). The product was allegedly in violation of section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 2009") as well because it lacked the retail sale price printed on the "principal display panel" and the font size of the MRP declaration did not match that of the net quantity declaration.

The department filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate in Thiruvananthapuram alleging violations of Rules 4, 6, 7(2), 9(1)(b), 9(3) read with rule 8(2) and 18 of the Rules, aside from Section 18 and section 36(1) of the Act. Despite the petitioners having issued a reply notice asserting that the product satisfied the requirements of the Act and the Rules, the department disregarded it and went ahead with filing the complaint.

In light of this, the instant petition was submitted in accordance with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to contest the Inspector of Legal Metrology's complaint.

Advocates Madhu Radhakrishnan and Nelson Joseph argued that the prosecution brought against the petitioners lacked any foundation. It was argued that petitioners had been set up as accused in violation of the law despite the availability of a nominee under section 49 of the Act. It was further argued that because the contents of the seized package had been completely removed, the merchandise that had been seized and brought before the court could not serve as proof of any violation of the Act or the Rules. Further, it was argued that the claim that the retail sale price was not displayed on the label of the bottle of "FROOTI," as required by the Rules, is unfounded and that the numbers indicating the MRP and packing date were of an adequate size.

On the other hand, Public Prosecutor K.A. Noushad contended that the necessity to bear the facts regarding MRP and necessary information on the package, as per Rule 6, was not adhered to in the present case. Furthermore, it was argued that despite receiving two show-cause notices, the first respondent was never notified of the nominee's name; as a result, the petitioners were unable to invoke Section 49 of the Act as a defence.

The Court took notice of the fact that criminal proceedings had been started on allegations of two particular requirements being violated: the MRP declaration was not printed on the label and was not readable; and the font size of the MRP and packing date numerals was not the required size.

In light of the circumstances, the Court noted, "Though in ordinary perception, the principal display panel will mean only the wrapper encircling or affixed on the bottle, the Rules perceive the principal display panel differently. The definition of the aforesaid term regards the total surface area of the package as the principal display panel. When Rule 8(1) directs that the total surface area of the package as the place where the information can be given in the manner specified, Rule 8(2) stipulates that for soft drinks and ready-to-serve fruit beverages or the like, to indicate the retail sale price either on the crown cap or on the bottle or on both, if the bottle is one which can be refilled".

The Court read Section 2(f) of the Act's definition of "label" and stated that every package must have the print of the MRP securely attached, either to the package itself or to the label. The Court so definitively decided: "Since at the time the first respondent purchased the product of the petitioners, the rules treated the entire bottle itself as a principal display panel and since the information, both online and pre-printed, could be affixed separately or together on the principal display panel, this Court is of the view that there is no legal basis for the allegation of infraction of Rule 8(2)".

Regarding the second allegation that the MRP and packing date numerals were not the required size, the Court took note of the relevant Rules and determined that the minimum height of the numerals must be 4mm in most cases and 6mm when the numerals are blown, formed, moulded, embossed, or perforated on the container if the net quantity of the product is above 500g or 500 ml. The claim made here is that the numeral's height is not 6mm.

"On a perusal of the complaint, it is evident that the product in question is not stated to be containing any blown, formed, molded embossed or perforated numerals on the container. In other words, the height of the numeral needs to be only 4mm as in the normal case and not 6mm as alleged in the complaint. In the absence of any specific allegation in the complaint that the product purchased by the first respondent, contained any blown, formed, molded, embossed or perforated numerals, the allegation of the requirement of a minimum height of 6mm for its numerals, is without any basis", it found.

The court also expressed worry about the fact that the container brought before it was just a plastic bottle without any substance or item within.

"The removal of the commodity from the bottle has a significant impact as regards the allegations. The legibility and clarity of the label or the online information printed on the bottle become clear only with the commodity inside the bottle. Merely because the product or the commodity is perishable, it was not open for the Inspector to remove the commodity from the bottle without complying with the provisions of the Act or the Rules, as that will prejudice the accused during the prosecution. It is for this purpose that the Act read with the Rules stipulate that if the commodity is perishable, the provisions of section 451 Cr.P.C. is required to be followed. There is no mandate or stipulation that enables the Inspector to remove the commodity from the bottle, rendering the accused to prejudice. The proceedings are liable to be quashed for this reason also", it held.

Regarding the nominee's non-prosecution and the unlawful prosecution of the company's managing director and other directors in violation of section 49 of the Act, the court determined that since the entire complaint had to be dismissed, these other questions were only of an academic nature and left the same open.

Because of these facts, the Criminal Miscellaneous case was accepted, and the proceedings were thrown out.

Case Title: M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Senior Inspector & Anr.
Citation: CRL.MC NO. 3354 OF 2015
Link: 

https://hckinfo.kerala.gov.in/digicourt/orders/2015/203700033542015_3.pdf