Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Order Date: 03 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd (registered office New Delhi; plant in Gangyal, J&K) represented by Mr. K. K. Giri, Factory Manager, and counsel Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy.AG.
  • Respondent No.2: Inspector Legal Metrology, Reasi, who filed the criminal complaint titled "Inspector Legal Metrology, Reasi v. Domino's Pizza Katra & Anr.".
  • Alleged offence: Violation of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rules 6 and 2(bc) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
  • Facts: On 25 October 2016, during an inspection at Domino's Pizza, Katra, the 600 ml Coca‑Cola bottle was priced at ₹60, whereas the same product was available in the open market at ₹35, allegedly constituting an overcharge of ₹25.
  • The complaint sought criminal prosecution of Hindustan Coca Cola and co‑accused for dual pricing and non‑compliance with statutory declarations.
  • Petitioners argued that at the material time (2016) there was no statutory prohibition on manufacturers declaring different MRPs for identical packaged commodities; the only requirement was that the package bear the declared MRP and other mandatory information.
  • They cited Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Department of Consumer Affairs FAQs indicating that price determination is at the manufacturer's discretion unless the commodity is controlled under the Essential Commodities Act.
  • The amendment introducing a prohibition on differential MRPs (sub‑rule 2A of Rule 18) came into force prospectively on 1 January 2018 via G.S.R. 629(E) dated 23 June 2017, i.e., after the alleged incident.
  • The Court examined the unamended Rule 2(bc) (definition of “Institutional Consumer”) and noted it is a definitional clause, not a prohibition on pricing.
  • Rule 6 requires the package to display the declared retail price, which the bottle did (₹60). Rule 18 (pre‑amendment) did not forbid different MRPs for the same product.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the facts do not disclose any offence under the Act or Rules as they stood in 2016.
  • It concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law.
  • Accordingly, the criminal complaint "Inspector Legal Metrology, Reasi v. Domino's Pizza, Katra & Anr." and the accompanying order of cognizance and process issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Reasi, are quashed.
  • The Court directed that a copy of this order be sent to the learned Magistrate for information.

Topics: Legal Metrology, Pricing Regulation