Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 4: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed criminal proceedings against Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., holding that declaring different MRPs for the same packaged product was not an offence at the time of the alleged incident in 2016.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while allowing the petition filed by the company through its factory manager, set aside the criminal complaint titled "Inspector Legal Metrology, Reasi v. Domino's Pizza Katra & Anr." pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Reasi, along with the order taking cognizance and all consequential proceedings.
The matter pertained to an inspection conducted on October 25, 2016, at Domino's Pizza, Katra, where the Legal Metrology Department alleged that a 600 ml Coca-Cola bottle was priced at Rs 60, while the same product was available in the open market for Rs 35. The department treated the difference of Rs 25 as overcharging and initiated prosecution under the Legal Metrology Act and Packaged Commodities Rules.
Appearing for the petitioner-company, Advocate Virender Bhat argued that the product carried all mandatory declarations, including its printed MRP, and there was no allegation that the bottle was sold above the declared MRP of Rs 60. He submitted that at the relevant time there was no statutory bar on a manufacturer declaring different MRPs for identical products sold through different trade channels.
On the other hand, Deputy Advocate General Dewakar Sharma, appearing for the respondents, defended the prosecution and submitted that charging Rs 60 for a bottle available at Rs 35 in the open market amounted to illegal overcharging and arbitrary price discrimination.
After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that Rule 18 of the Legal Metrology Rules, at the relevant time, did not prohibit declaration of different MRPs for the same product. The Court noted that the restriction against different MRPs was introduced only later through an amendment which came into force from January 1, 2018.
The Court held that since the alleged inspection had taken place in 2016, the later amendment could not be applied retrospectively to criminalise an act which was not prohibited at that time.
Justice Oswal observed that the uncontroverted facts failed to disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner-company. The Court further held that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the complaint, the cognizance order and all proceedings arising from the case pending before the Reasi court. (JNF) |
