SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed criminal proceedings against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd in a decade-old case alleging overpricing of soft drinks at a Domino’s outlet in Katra, holding that there was no legal prohibition on manufacturers declaring different Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) for identical packaged products before January 1, 2018.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, in a judgment pronounced on July 3, set aside the complaint filed by the Legal Metrology Department and all consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Reasi.
The case arose from an inspection conducted on October 25, 2016, at Domino’s Pizza, Katra, where Legal Metrology officials found a 600 ml Coca-Cola bottle being sold for Rs 60, while the same product was reportedly available in the open market for Rs 35. The department alleged that charging Rs 60 amounted to overpricing in violation of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and Rules 2(bc) and 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The beverage manufacturer challenged the prosecution, arguing that at the time of the inspection there was no statutory bar on declaring different MRPs for identical products sold through different trade channels, provided each package displayed the applicable MRP and the product was not sold above the printed price.
The High Court accepted this contention, observing that Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act merely requires mandatory declarations, including the retail sale price, on packaged commodities. It noted that Rule 18 of the Rules prohibited sale above the printed MRP or tampering with the declared price but did not, at the relevant time, prohibit manufacturers from assigning different MRPs to identical products.
The court pointed out that the restriction on dual MRPs was introduced only through the insertion of Rule 18(2A) by a 2017 amendment, which came into force on January 1, 2018. Since the alleged offence took place in October 2016, the amended provision could not be applied retrospectively.
Justice Oswal also held that Rule 2(bc), cited by the prosecution, was merely a definitional provision relating to institutional consumers and could not independently constitute the basis for criminal prosecution.
Holding that the uncontroverted facts did not disclose the commission of any offence, the court ruled that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It accordingly quashed the criminal complaint titled Inspector Legal Metrology, Reasi v. Domino’s Pizza, Katra & Another, along with the order taking cognisance and all consequential proceedings.
