Authority: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Order Date: 11 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Kumar Joshi, aged about 48 years, ex‑General Manager (Legal) of Pearson Education, Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd.
  • Respondent: State of Karnataka, represented by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Malleshwaram Sub‑Division, Bengaluru.
  • Petition: Criminal Petition No. 6547 of 2019 filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quash of the order dated 26 July 2012 (Annexure‑B) passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and quash of the complaint dated 26 July 2012 (Annexure‑A) pending before the LVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (CC No. 17160/2012).
  • Allegations: On 27 January 2012, an inspection by the Inspector of Legal Metrology and a panch witness at the premises of Sri Abhishek L (Director), Surya Infotainment Products Pvt. Ltd., found a pre‑packed engineering drawing textbook published by Pearson. The package lacked mandatory label details required under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 – namely manufacturer name and full address, maximum retail price, manufacturing/packing month and year, net contents, consumer‑care telephone number and e‑mail address. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, as accused No. 2, was a manufacturer‑cum‑publisher and therefore liable under Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 18(1) of the Rules 2011, punishable under Section 36 read with Section 49 of the Act.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions:
  • Accused No. 1 had previously been quashed by this Court (order dated 10 July 2019, Crl.P.No. 1931/2015).
  • The definition of “pre‑packed commodity” is pending before the Supreme Court.
  • Joshi was not a person nominated under Section 49(3) of the Act and did not hold a post involving day‑to‑day affairs of Dorling Kindersley; he was merely a General Manager (Legal).
  • No specific allegation in the complaint linked Joshi to the conduct of business; therefore, taking cognizance against him is legally untenable.
  • Respondent’s Contentions: The complaint clearly identified a pre‑packed package lacking required label details, constituting an offence under Section 18 of the Act and Rule 18(1) of the Rules 2011, thus justifying prosecution of both accused.
  • Legal Provisions Discussed: Sections 18, 36, 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009; Rules 4, 6, 27, 32 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011; Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.; Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.; and relevant Supreme Court judgments – Aneeta Hada v. M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. (2012 5 SCC 661) and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998 5 SCC 749).
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The complaint does not allege that Joshi was in charge of the company’s affairs or that he was a nominated person under Section 49.
  • Section 49 makes a company and the person(s) in charge liable; where no person is nominated, every person in charge at the time of the offence is deemed guilty.
  • The company was not named as an accused, and no material was placed before the Court to show Joshi’s nomination or responsibility.
  • Citing the Aneeta Hada and Pepsi Foods judgments, the Court held that proceedings cannot continue where the company is not a party.
  • The earlier quash of accused No. 1 (who had ceased to be Managing Director as of 14 April 2011) reinforces that liability must be linked to actual responsibility at the time of the alleged offence.
  • Continuing the prosecution against Joshi would amount to an abuse of process and a miscarriage of justice.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is allowed.
  • The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C. No. 17160/2012 are quashed.
  • The complaint dated 26 July 2012 is also quashed.

Topics: Legal Metrology, Criminal Procedure