Under weight of product
VARUN MAHAJAN
(Querist) 05 July 2013
This query is : Resolved
A product was been purchased from market for which it was written that weight of prduct mentioned is 300 Gm and 10 Gm Free which means 310 Gm but the physical weight of that product is 300 Gm only.
Can any one cite case laws regarding the same
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 05 July 2013
The complaint under
THE LEGAL METROLOGY ACT, 2009
may be more rewarding……………
Keep the original bill, pack with MRP and weight on it, and payment receipt safely.
The concerned central Govt. Ministry is at:
http://fcamin.nic.in/
Dept of Consumer Affairs at:
http://consumeraffairs.nic.in/consumer/index.php
Consumer Info at:
http://consumeraffairs.nic.in/consumer/?q=node/4
NATIONAL CONSUMER POLICY at:
http://consumeraffairs.nic.in/consumer/?q=node/287
Complaint can be lodged under:
Legal Metrology
The details of it are at:
http://consumeraffairs.nic.in/consumer/?q=node/114
and download PDF file.
Complaint can also be filed under Consumer Protection Act.
You may log on to your legal metrology website of your State Govt and lodge complaint and demand that previous min. 3 batches of the company be examined to determine the amounts overcharged from customers/ weight less supplied.
You can file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act also.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 July 2013
I do endorse the detailed advice of Doab.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 05 July 2013
Well advised by the expert Kumar Doab. Nothing more to add.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 05 July 2013
agree with experts.
VARUN MAHAJAN
(Querist) 06 July 2013
Thanks for the above information but i needed some case laws regaarding the same.
If any one can
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 06 July 2013
Sorry!
We do not provide judgements.
Do some homework for your self.surf net for that.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 06 July 2013
for case laws visit indian kanoon website
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 06 July 2013
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
General Manager, (West Bengal), ... vs Sri Sachindranath Majumdar & Anr on 12 November, 2008
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Form No. J (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy
C.R.R. NO. 1781 of 2006
General Manager, (West Bengal), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Versus
Sri Sachindranath Majumdar & Anr.
For Petitioners : Mr. Joymalya Bagchi
Mr. M.S. Yadav
Heard On : August 25th, 2008.
Judgment On : 12-11-2008.
Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court the petitioners sought for quashing of their prosecution in connection with the complaint Case No. 48 of 2005, under Section 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and under Section 51 and 61 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, now pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner no. 1 is the General Manager, West Bengal and the petitioner no. 3 is the Area Manager, Indane Area Office of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the petitioner no. 2 herein. Inspite of repeated call none appears on behalf of the opposite parties. Affidavit of service showing that service has already been effected be kept with the record.
3. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners prays for quashing of the case on the following grounds;
(a) Neither the petitioner no. 1 nor the petitioner no. 3 were at the material point of time involved in the manufacturing or packaging process of the products of the company.
(b) The respective factory managers are entirely responsible for manufacturing and packaging process.
(c) The petitioner no. 1 is involved in framing the broad policies of the company and the petitioner no. 3 is a marketing man and no way responsible for packaging and manufacturing of the company's product. (d) The petitioners have been implicated in this case to harass and humiliate them.
(e) Simply because the petitioners are holding the post of General Manager, West Bengal and Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Marketing Division, Eastern Region, they cannot ipso facto made vicariously liable. (f) The bald and vague allegation that the petitioners were in- charge of the company at the time when offence was committed does not bring them within the mischief of Section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Section 62 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.
(g) There is no materials and or basis to show that the accused company, Indian Oil Corporation Limited has actually made, manufactured, packed, sealed or cause to be packed or distributed, delivered or offered and expose for sale the seized articles.
4. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Perused the impugned complaint as well as other materials on record.
5. The contention of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case to harass and humiliate and they were in no way involved in the manufacturing and packaging process of the products of the accused company as well as the contentions that the respective factory managers are responsible for the same are all pure question of facts and cannot be gone into at the present stage while this court is considering the question of quashing of the complaint. It is a settled law that while considering the question of quashing in exercising of its revisional jurisdiction it is not permissible for the court to enter into a debatable arena of the case and court cannot embark upon an enquiry to decide the truth or falsehood of the case against the accused, which is purely the matter of trial. I am also of the opinion when a complaint is made to a court by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, it is sufficient if the petition of complaint contents an averment to that effect and the question of establishing such authority would only arise if such authority is challenged during trial.
6. The only other contention of the petitioners in support of quashing of the complaint that mere allegation that they were in-charge of the company at the time when the offence was committed cannot bring them within the mischief of Section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Section 62 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.
7. In the instant case, it appears from the cause title as well as the averment made in paragraph 3 of the criminal revisional application, admittedly the petitioner no. 1 is the General Manager and the petitioner no. 3 is the Area Manager of the accused company. The provisions of Section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the provisions of Section 62 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Those provisions relates to the same subject i.e. the vicarious liability of any person, who are responsible to the company the principal accused for conducting its day to day business and is in-charge of the same.
8. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors., reported in 1983 SCC (Cri) 115, while interpreting Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in a similar situation Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows; "Before going to the complainant, we might state that it is common ground that the complaint clearly contains the allegations regarding the visit of the Inspector to the shop of respondent No. 6 (Madan Lal) and that the sample taken by him, which was sent to the Public Analyst, was manufactured by Upper Ganges Sugar Mills, Darayaganj, Delhi, having its registered office at Calcutta and that the Public Analyst found the samples to be adulterated. There is no dispute regarding these facts. The only point on which the controversy centers is as to whether or not on the allegations, the Manager as also the other respondents 1 to 5 committed any offence. The main clause of the complaint which is the subject matter of the dispute is clause No. 5 which may be extracted thus :" "5. That the accused No. 3 is the Manager, of accused No. 2 and accused Nos. 4 to 7 are the Directors of accused No. 2 and as such they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of accused No. 2 at the time of sampling." (Para 12) "According to this clause, accused No. 3 (Ramkishan) who is respondent no. 1 in this appeal and accused Nos. 4-7 who are respondent Nos. 2 to 4, were the Directors of the company, respondent No. 5. So far as the Manager, respondent No. 1, is concerned it was not and could not be reasonably argued that no case is made out against him because from the very nature of his duties, it is manifest that he must be in the knowledge about the affairs of the sale and manufacture of the disputed sample. It was, however, contended that there is no allegation whatsoever against the Directors, respondent Nos. 2 to 4. (Para 13)
"Reliance has been placed on the words 'as such' in order to argue that because the complaint does not attribute any criminal responsibility to accused Nos. 4 to 7 except that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. It is true that there is no clear averment of the fact that the Directors were really in charge of the manufacture and responsible for the conduct of business but the words 'as such' indicate that the complaint has merely presumed that the Directors of the company must be guilty because they are holding a particular office. This argument found favour with the High Court which quashed the proceedings against the Directors as also against the Manager, respondent No. 1." (Para 14)
"So far as the Manager is concerned, we are satisfied that from the very nature of his duties it can be safely inferred that he would undoubtedly be vicariously liable for the offence; vicarious liability being an incident of an offence under the Act. So far as the Directors are concerned, there is not even a whisper nor a shred of evidence nor anything to show, apart from the presumption drawn by the complainant, that there is any act committed by the Directors from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that they could also be vicariously liable. In these circumstances, therefore, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the argument of the High Court that no case against the Directors (accused Nos. 4 to 7) has been made out ex facie on the allegations made in the complaint and the proceedings against them were rightly quashed." " (Para 15) "We, however, do not agree that even accused No. 3, respondent No. 1, who is Manager of the Company and therefore directly in charge of its affairs, could fall in the same category as the Directors. Hence, we would set aside that part of the judgement of the High Court which quashes the proceedings against the Manager, respondent No. 1 (Ram Kishan Rohtagi)." (Para 16)
In the Case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1975, before a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the liability of a director in the ambit of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was came up for consideration and the Apex Court held as follows;
"19. (a) It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time of offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.
(b) The answer to the question posed in sub-para (b) has to be in the negative. Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The requirement of Section 141 is that the person sought to be made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a director in such cases. (c) The answer to Question (c) has to be in the affirmative. The question notes that the managing director or joint managing director would be admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable under Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as managing director or joint managing director, these persons are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as the signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under sub-section (2) of Section
141."
9. Thus, in the petition of complaint where the accused persons have been described as the Managers, in the present case which is an admitted position, they can very well be prosecuted merely on the allegations that they are liable for prosecution along with the company, the principal accused with the aid of Section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Section 62 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. Since, so far as the Managers are concerned, as the designation of their office suggests and by very nature of their duty it can always be inferred that they would be vicariously liable for the offence committed by their company, unless they able to prove that when the offence was committed they had no knowledge of the offence or that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. As such there is no impediment to proceed against the petitioners on the basis of the impugned complaint.
This criminal revision has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
The office is directed to immediately communicate this order to the learned Court below at once.
In view of the disposal of the main criminal revision C.R.R. No. 1781 of 2006, the application for extension of interim order being CRAN No. 1975 of 2008 stands disposed of.
Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. )
VARUN MAHAJAN
(Querist) 07 July 2013
Thanks Sir,
I tried to search and was still serching but some how I was not able to get case law as you given.
I think if seniors like you are with us we can learn a lot and in earliear stages we do need some guidance as gave.
Thanks
