2008 (2) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The facts in brief are that an inspection was carried out on 4th December, 2003 in a shop M/s. Roshan Traders No. 19/2006, Sarai Basti, Delhi of Shri Pritam. The report of inspection states as under: Packages of Gold Flake, 2001 in 10s manufactured by ITC Ltd. 37, J.L. Nehru Rd, Kolkata not bearing MRP inclusive of all Taxes on the pack. 3. On the basis of the above inspection Complaint No. 528 of 2004 was filed in the court of the SMM against Shri Pritam Kumar Jain the proprietor of M/s. Roshan Traders. 4. On 7th July, 2006 Shri Pritam was present before the SMM and disclosed that the Petitioner here, i.e. ITC Limited was the manufacturer of the commodity in question and was therefore liable for the offence. Thereupon the S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the State does not dispute that the inspection report refers to a wholesale package. However, he submits that the question whether the package conformed to Rule 29 or not can be left for determination by the trial court and that this Court should not interfere in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC. 7. The facts are not in dispute. The inspection report makes it abundantly clear that the package in question are wholesale packages. The question is whether a wholesale package was required to display the maximum retail price (MRP) as mentioned in the inspection report and whether the failure to do so resulted in the contravention of the 1976 Act and the 1977 Rules. 8. The expression wholesale package has been defined under Rule....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o requirement of mentioning the MRP. It is not in dispute that each of the retail packages in the wholesale package in question did comply with the requirement of Rule 6 of 1977 Rules. The only question is whether the requirement of Rule 6 also applies to wholesale packages.   9. The judgment in Jayanti Food Processing Private Ltd. provides the answer to this question. There the Supreme Court held that packages covered by Rule 29 would be outside the purview of retail sale as under that Rule retail prices are not required to be mentioned on the package. In para 20 of the said judgment it was observed as under : When we read these Rules along with provisions of Section 4-A of the Act, it would be clear that where there is a gen....