IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1931/2015 BETWEEN:
Mr. Vivek Govil, S/o. Surendra Prakash Govil, Aged about 51 years, G-29, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017, India. …Petitioner (By Sri. P.K. Shrikara, Advocate along with Sri. B.M. Mohan Kumara, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, Through the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Malleswaram Sub-Division, No.21, 4th Main, Between 8th and 9th Cross, Bengaluru – 560 003. ...Respondent (By Sri. Dinesh Rao, Addl.A.G. along with Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 26.07.2012 and quash the entire proceedings in PCR No.104/2012 now numbered as C.C.No.17160/2012 on the file on VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, initiated against the petitioner (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 petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner has sought to set aside the proceedings in PCR No.104/2012 now numbered as C.C.No.17160/2012 pending on the file of the VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on the ground that the facts averred in the complaint do not make out any ingredients of the offences under Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rule 18(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 and secondly, the petitioner herein was not the Managing Director of M/s.Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd., which is prosecuted as manufacturer cum publisher of the alleged pre-packed package of Pearson published Engineering Drawing Text Book.
3. Insofar as the first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the book published by M/s.Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd., does not fall within the definition of ‘prepackaged commodity’ as defined under the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, is concerned, learned counsel would submit that the issue is referred for consideration of the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Vs. SUBHASH ARJUNDAS KATARIA (CA NO.1117/2010 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DATED 26.08.2011), hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not addressed any arguments on this legal issue and the same is kept open.
4. Insofar as the second contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner/accused No.1 was not the Managing Director as on the date of the alleged seizure of the pre-packed package of Pearson published Engineering Drawing Text Book, is concerned, petitioner has produced copy of Form 32 submitted before the Registrar of Companies pursuant to Sections 303(2), 264(2) and 266(1)(a) and 266(1)(b)(iii) of the Companies Act, 1956, which discloses that the petitioner herein ceased to be the Managing Director of the aforesaid Company w.e.f. 14.04.2011. There is nothing on record to show that since then he has been associated with the said company. The alleged offence is stated to have been committed on 27.01.2012. Since prima-facie material is produced before the Court to show that as on 27.01.2012 petitioner was not the Managing Director of the above Company and was not associated with the said company, prosecution launched against the petitioner is illegal and untenable and on that ground, the impugned proceedings launched against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated against the petitioner in PCR No.104/2012 now numbered as C.C.No.17160/2012 on the file on VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed. Liberty is reserved to the complainant to proceed against the concerned in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE SV