Prosecution under the Legal Metrology Act requires arraignment of the company and specific responsibility averments against the officer.

On 27 January 2012, the Inspector of Legal Metrology inspected the premises of M/s. Surya Infotainment Products Pvt. Ltd. and allegedly found a pre-packed Pearson-published Engineering Drawing Textbook without declarations relating to the manufacturer’s name and address, maximum retail price, month and year of manufacture or packing, net contents, and consumer-care contact details.

A private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed alleging violations of Rules 4, 6 and 27 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and the corresponding penal provisions.

The petitioner, described as the General Manager (Legal) of Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd., was arrayed as accused No. 2. The Magistrate took cognizance in C.C. No. 17160/2012.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., contending that the company had not been arraigned, he had not been nominated under Section 49 of the Act, and the complaint contained no averment that he was in charge of or responsible for the company’s business.

The Court also noted that proceedings against another accused had previously been quashed in Crl.P. No. 1931/2015.

1. Whether criminal proceedings under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 could be maintained against the petitioner when the company had not been arraigned as an accused.

2. Whether the petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 in the absence of an averment that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business or had been nominated under Section 49(2).

3. Whether continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 49(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 imposes vicarious criminal liability on the company and, where an offence is committed by a company, on the person nominated to be in charge of and responsible for its business or, in the absence of nomination, on every person who was in charge of and responsible for the company’s conduct of business at the relevant time.

Mere designation as an employee or General Manager is insufficient without the necessary factual averments establishing such responsibility.

The Court relied on Aneeta Hada v. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661, and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, for the principle that, in a statutory scheme creating corporate or vicarious liability, the principal corporate entity must ordinarily be arraigned and the complaint must disclose the accused person’s responsibility for the company’s affairs.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to quash proceedings where their continuation would constitute an abuse of process or result in miscarriage of justice.

Although the complaint alleged that the inspected package lacked mandatory declarations under the Legal Metrology Act and Rules, it merely described the petitioner as General Manager (Legal) and stated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were manufacturer-cum-publishers.

It did not allege that the petitioner was in charge of or responsible for the company’s day-to-day business, nor did it state that he had been nominated under Section 49.

The company itself had not been made an accused, resulting in non-compliance with the statutory framework governing offences by companies.

Applying the principles in Aneeta Hada and Pepsi Foods, the Court held that the petitioner’s prosecution could not be sustained merely on the basis of his designation, particularly when the complaint lacked the foundational averments necessary to attract Section 49.

The petition was accordingly allowed, and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C. No. 17160/2012 were quashed.