IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7704 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. Ashwini Sachdev, S/o Sri. Avinash Chander Sachdev, 807, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Juha Heikki Jarvi, S/o Mr.Mikko Henrik Jarvi, 807, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001.
AND:
(By Sri.N.Jagadish Baliga, Advocate) …Petitioners State through, Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, No.763, 60th Cross, 5th Block, Near Bhasyam Circle, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010.
(By Sri.Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. S.P.P.,) ...Respondent This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the further proceedings in C.C.No.11185/2015 pending in the Court of MMTC - I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore and take cognizance in entire proceedings including the order dated 22.04.2015 (vide Annexure – A).
This Criminal petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Public Prosecutor for respondent – State and perused records.
2. The Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, Bengaluru filed a complaint against the petitioners herein alleging violation of Section 11(1)(c) and (e) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
3. According to the complainant, on 26.11.2014, the complainant observed an advertisement in ‘Times of India’, Bengaluru edition, advertising for sale of Lumia 535 mobile under caption “capture more on you skype calls”. This advertisement according to the complainant is contrary to Section 5 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, which requires the length or the measurement should be referred in terms of “meters” and not “inches”.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the offending advertisement has pointed out that in addition to mentioning the screen size of mobile in inches, petitioners have also mentioned the measurement in centimeters as 12.7 cms which is in accordance with the requirement of Section 5 of the Act, as such, there is no violation of the provision of Section 11 of the Act and therefore, initiation of the prosecution against the petitioners is baseless and abuse of process of Court.
5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, however, argued defending the impugned action contending that the length of the screen ought to have mentioned first in metric unit and therefore, the prosecution has been validly launched against the petitioners.
6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that centimeter is a metric unit. Copy of the offending advertisement made by the petitioners is produced at Annexure-D, wherein the dimension of the screen is described as under:
“built in skype and large 5” (12.7 cm) screen”
7. This description in my view is in conformity with Section 5 of the Legal Metrology Act. Section 5 reads as under:
“5. Base unit of weights and measures.- (1) The base unit of-
(i) length shall be the metre;
(ii) mass shall be the kilogram;
(iii) time shall be the second;
(iv) electric current shall be the ampere;
(v) thermodynamic temperature shall be the Kelvin;
(vi) luminous intensity shall be the candela; and (vii) amount of substance shall be the mole.
(2) The specifications of the base units mentioned in sub-section (1), derived units and other units shall be such as may be prescribed.”
8. Since, the advertisement contains the measurement in terms of the metric unit, in my view, there is full compliance of the requirement of Section 5 of the Act, as such, I am not prepared to accept the contention of learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that by specifying the measurement in inches in addition to the metric unit, petitioners have violated the provision of Section 5 of the Act.
9. As the petitioners have not violated any of the provisions of the said Act prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged violation of Section 11 of the Act is cannot be sustained.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.
No.11185/2015 pending in the Court of MMTC-I, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH