G.R. Wines vs The Controller of Weights and Measures, Hyderabad and Another

Heard the learned Government Pleader.

The case of the petitioner is that he is distributor. He receives ''Royal Scot Doctors Whisky'' and distributes it to the sub-agents. The respondents have no role to play in the matter of following the procedure regarding the particulars to be furnished, namely, name and address of the manufacturer, etc. Therefore the seizure by the authorities for contravention of R. 4, R. 6(1)(a) read with R. 10, R. 9(2) and R. 29 and also Sections 63 and 67 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) (for short ''the Act'') and the rules made thereunder, namely the Standards of Weights and Measures (packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. Had the authorities given an opportunity to the petitioner, he would have been in a position to explain them that he is unnecessarily made responsible for the omission of the particulars mentioned in the show cause notice. Therefore the seizure is in violation of the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice. I am unable to agree. The Act and the Rules are penal statutes. Section 63 of the Act provides :

"Whoever in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, sells, distributes, delivers or otherwise transfers, or causes to be sold, distributed, delivered, or otherwise transferred any commodity in a packaged form which does not conform to the provisions of this Act any rule made thereunder, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, and for the second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine."

Section 67 also provides the residuary power for punishment where there is no express penalty specified under the Act. Section 39 in Chapter IV provides :

"(1) No person shall -

(a) make, manufacture, pack, sell, or cause to be packed or sold; or

(b) distribute, deliver, or cause to be distributed or delivered; or

(c) offer, expose or possess for sale, any commodity in packaged form to which this part applies unless such package bears thereon or on a label securely attached thereto a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration, made in the prescribed manner, of -

(i) the identity of the commodity in the package;

(ii) the net quantity, in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity in the package;

(iii) where the commodity is packaged or sold by number, the accurate number of the commodity contained in the package.

(iv) the unit sale price of commodity in the package; and

(v) the sale price of the package."

For the implementation thereof, R. 4 of the Rules provides :

"On and from the commencement of these rules, no person shall pre-pack or cause or permit to be pre-packed any commodity for sale, distribution or delivery unless the package in which the commodity is pre-packed bears thereon, or on a label securely affixed thereto, such declaration as are required to be made under these rules."

Rule 6 provides the declarations to be made on every package thus :

"(i) Every package shall bear thereon or on a label securely affixed thereto a definite plain and conspicuous declaration, made in accordance with the Provisions of this Chapter as to (a) the name and address of the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer is not the packer, of the packer or with the written consent of the manufacturer, of the manufacturer."

The other clauses are not necessary for the purpose. Hence they are omitted. Rule 10 also provides that the declaration of name and address of the manufacturer, etc. has to be given. Rule 29 similarly provides the declaration to be made on every wholesale package viz.,

"Every wholesale package shall bear thereon a legible, definite, plain and conspicuous declaration as to (a) the name and address of the manufacturer or where the manufacturer is not the packer, of the packages; (b) the identity of the commodity contained in the package; and (c) the total number of retail packages contained in such wholesale package or the net quantity in terms of the standard units of weight, measure or number of the commodity contained in wholesale package."

A reading of these provisions would disclose that when the goods are pre-packed and they are sent from the manufacturer to the distributor for distribution, or for sale, the container or the package shall bear the particulars prescribed under the Act and the rules made thereunder, and once there is an omission it is an offence as postulated under the provisions of the Act. Section 29 of the Act provides the authorised person to exercise the powers including the power to seize by operation of sub-secs. (1) and (2) thereof. Now the allegation is that as the package does not contain the particulars prescribed the goods have been seized. A notice has been given to the agent of the petitioner for compounding the offence. The power to compound the offence has been provided under S. 73 of the Act. Under these circumstances, the authorities functioning under the Act have no jurisdiction to go into the validity or otherwise of the proposed action. The offence being a cognizable offence, the competent Court is the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Therefore, if the petitioner intends to dispute the correctness thereof, it is open to the petitioner or to his agent, from whom the goods have been seized, to satisfy the Magistrate regarding the non-contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, and if intends to compound the offence as provided under S. 73 of the Act, either the petitioner or his agent is free to compound the offence in terms of S. 73. Therefore the question of giving opportunity to the petitioner before issue of notice to compound the offences does not arise and there is no procedure contemplated under Act. Therefore the writ petition is misconceived.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-.

Petition dismissed.