Case Against Samsung Contradictory & Discloses No Offence: Karnataka HC Quashes Legal Metrology Department's Complaint
|The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a Complaint against Samsung India, filed before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, by the Department of Legal Metrology, alleging the non-declaration of MRP as per Rule of the Legal Metrology (Numeration) Rules 2011 and for non-indication-of-the-quantity as provided under Rule of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules-2011 on the wholesale package products.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed that "This Court is of the view that on reading the complaint and its accompaniments, the same does not disclose any of the offence alleged and these aspects are not dealt with by the Magistrate while taking cognizance. This Court would also find that the complaint itself is contradictory and there is a total misinterpretation of relevant Sections of the Metrology Act, 2009, Rule 2(m) and Rule 24(c) of Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011."
It was also noted in the order of the High Court that "If the material does not indicate that prima-facie offence in question is made out, the same would amount to abuse of process, if permitted to continue against the petitioner."
Advocate C.R. Mahendra Gowda appeared for Samsung India while the Legal Metrology Department, Bangalore was represented by the High Court Government Pleader Vinayak V.S.
Background: In the Complaint filed by the Inspector for the Legal Metrology Department, it was alleged that during the inspection, of one pre-packed Samsung Galaxy Tab-4, they found the maximum retail price to be printed atRs.14,000/- which was not in conformity with Rule 4(2) of the Legal Metrology (Numeration) Rules, 2011 read with Section 6(2) and (3) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
It was also stated, that during the further inspection, one pre-packed (wholesale packaged product) containing 20 individual packages was found not to have the qualifying symbol 'N' for indicating the quantity as provided under Rule 13 sub-clause (5)(ii) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Comrncdities) Rules, 2011. It was submitted that the mere mentioning of the Numeral '20' without qualifying unit 'N' amounts to a violation of Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011. The jurisdictional Magistrate on registering the private complaint took cognizance and the summons were issued to Samsung. Being aggrieved with the same, Samsung, approached the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Samsung India referred to the first offence as indicated in the complaint and contended that on the combined reading of Section 52 and Section 10 of the Metrology Act, 2009, it is quite clear that Numeration Rules, 2011 would apply only to weight, measure or number as detailed in Section 52(2)(f) of Metrology Act, 2009 and therefore, it is not at all applicable for price/MRP of packaged goods.
On the second offence, it was argued that Rule 13(5)(ii), is applicable for retail packages while wholesale packages are governed under Chapter-III of Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011 as well as Rule 24 of Packaged Commodities Rules. On the other hand, the Department argued that Samsung India was offered sufficient opportunity to offer an explanation for compounding the offences. As they failed to offer a satisfactory explanation, the complainant was compelled to register the complaint. It was also submitted that these grounds are to be tested only during trial and therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Considering the submissions, the High Court observed that "On a combined reading of Section 52 and 10 of Metrology Act, 2009, it is clearly evident that Numeration Rules, 2011 would apply only for weight, measure or number as detailed in Section 52(2)(f) of Metrology Act, 2009. Therefore, I find some force ‘in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that offence No.1 as indicated in the complaint is not at all made out as it does not apply for price/MRP of packaged goods."
Further, on the second offence, the High Court reasoned that "On a plain reading of the above-said Rule, it is clearly evident that the said provision is applicable only for retail packages and are not applicable to wholesale packages." Accordingly, it was observed that "It is clearly evident that the complaint is tainted with malafides. The allegations made in the complaint are found to be totally frivolous and vexatious. Even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted in entirety, the same does not constitute any substantive offence and prima-facie the allegations are found to be frivolous."
The High Court also observed that the complaint is also not sustainable as it is registered against all the Directors when the company has clearly nominated a person in terms of Section 49 of the Metrology Act, 2009.
Cause Title: M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka through the Inspector of Legal Metrology