Court holds prosecution against individual without arraying company as accused amounts to abuse of process under Legal Metrology Act, 2009
In a significant judgment dated September 11, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice H.P. Sandesh, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Mr. Prashant Kumar Joshi, General Manager (Legal) of M/s. Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd. The case pertained to alleged violations of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and related rules concerning the packaging information on a textbook sold in the market.
The complaint arose from an inspection conducted on January 27, 2012, where it was found that a pre-packed package of the "Engineering Drawing Textbook" published by Pearson lacked mandatory declarations such as the manufacturer's name and address, maximum retail price, manufacturing or packing date, net contents, and consumer care details, as stipulated under Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules 4, 6, and 27 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The complaint named Mr. Joshi and another accused as manufacturer-cum-publishers responsible for the violation.
However, the Court found that the company itself, M/s. Dorling Kindersley, was not arrayed as an accused in the proceedings. Moreover, the complaint did not contain any specific averments that Mr. Joshi was in charge of or responsible for the company's day-to-day business affairs at the time of the alleged offence. Mr. Joshi was neither a director nor the managing director but held the position of General Manager (Legal), a role which, the Court noted, does not imply responsibility for the overall conduct of company affairs. He was described as a normal employee.
The Court referred extensively to Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, which mandates that when an offence is committed by a company, prosecution can be initiated against the company itself and the person nominated under subsection (2) or, in absence of nomination, against every person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of offence. The absence of the company as an accused and lack of nomination of Mr. Joshi under Section 49(3) rendered the proceedings defective.
Drawing parallels with Supreme Court judgments on analogous provisions under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, including Aneeta Hada v. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Court observed that prosecuting an individual without naming the company violates mandatory legal requirements and constitutes an abuse of the legal process.
The Court emphasized that continuing the proceedings against Mr. Joshi, who was neither nominated nor responsible for the company's business affairs, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The Court also noted a prior quashing of proceedings against another accused for similar reasons.
Consequently, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Karnataka High Court quashed the criminal complaint and all proceedings against Mr. Joshi in C.C. No.17160/2012.
This judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements in prosecuting company officials under the Legal Metrology Act and serves as a precedent against prosecuting individuals without proper nomination or responsibility.
Bottom Line:
Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - Proceedings against a company official cannot be sustained if the company itself is not arrayed as an accused. Specific averments regarding the official's responsibility for the conduct of the company's business are essential for initiating prosecution.
Statutory provision(s):
Legal Metrology Act, 2009 Section 18, 36, 49; Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 Rules 4, 6, 18(1), 24, 27, 32; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 200, 482; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 141
Prashant Kumar Joshi v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2977425
