2009 (12) TMI 422 - HC - Central Excise

Court quashes case over 'Diapers' not falling under regulated commodities list.

CHAIRMAN, KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER (P) LTD. Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

The court quashed the proceedings against all accused individuals in a case involving alleged violations of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, ... Weight and measures- Package containing dipers mentioning them as “large” but size of diper in centimeter or millimeter not mentioned package declaring marbel used in manufacture of diaper. Sample o diper examined and the same not found to be woven piece of clothe like bed sheet, saree, napkin or pillow cover listed under relevant Rule 18 of Standard of weight and Measures (Packaged commodity)Rule, 1977. composition of diaper revealing that the same made up of various materials. Diaper cannot be considered as similar to commodities listed in Rule 18 and not covered under Rule 18. Non declaration of dimension not violative Rule 18. Prosecution quashed. Issues:Violation of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and RulesInterpretation of Rule 18 of the Standards of Weights And Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977Applicability of Rule 39 of the RulesQuashing of the entire proceedings in the caseViolation of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rules:The case involved the prosecution alleging violations of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights And Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The complaint stated that accused individuals possessed packages of 'Huggies Diapers' without proper metric unit labeling, which was deemed a violation of the Act and the Rules. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 sought quashing of the proceedings initiated against them.Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Standards of Weights And Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977:The main contention revolved around the interpretation of Rule 18, which required the declaration of dimensions for certain commodities on packages. The defense argued that Diapers did not fall under the listed commodities in Rule 18 and thus did not violate the rule. However, the prosecution contended that the term 'commodities like' and 'similar other commodities' in Rule 18 were inclusive, and Diapers could be considered similar to napkins, necessitating proper dimension declarations.Applicability of Rule 39 of the Rules:The defense emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish a violation of Rule 18 or Rule 23(1), which made the proceedings against the accused individuals unwarranted. The prosecution, on the other hand, asserted that the absence of metric unit labeling on Diapers constituted a breach of Rule 18, punishable under Rule 39. The court analyzed the materials and design of Diapers to determine their classification under Rule 18.Quashing of the entire proceedings in the case:After a detailed examination of the materials used in Diapers and their unique purpose, the court concluded that Diapers did not resemble the commodities listed under Rule 18. As a result, the court allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr. PC, quashing the entire proceedings against all accused individuals in the case. The decision highlighted the lack of violation by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, which subsequently rendered the prosecution against accused Nos. 3 and 4 untenable.In summary, the judgment focused on the interpretation of Rule 18 of the Standards of Weights And Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 concerning the labeling requirements for commodities. The court's analysis of the materials and design of Diapers led to the conclusion that they did not fall under the listed commodities in Rule 18, thereby dismissing the violations alleged against the accused individuals. The decision resulted in the quashing of the entire proceedings in the case, emphasizing the lack of merit in the prosecution's claims and the absence of violations by the accused parties.