KOLHAPUR:<\/em> The Bombay High Court<\/a><\/strong> has quashed criminal proceedings pending for nearly 13 years against a 60-year-old retired man accused of charging \u20b91 above the Maximum Retail Price for a Pepsi bottle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale<\/strong> held that the prosecution against Vasudeo Tanaji Narvekar<\/strong> was \u201cmisconceived and misdirected.\u201d The material placed by the complainant himself showed that the bottle was sold from the petitioner\u2019s wife\u2019s shop by the wife. The husband had only prepared the bill on her instructions after the sale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The dispute began on March 29, 2013, when an Inspector of Legal Metrology allegedly visited the shop and purchased a 600 ml Pepsi bottle marked at an MRP of \u20b925<\/strong> for \u20b926. A bill for \u20b926 was also issued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On July 24, 2013, the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Lanja issued process against the husband for an alleged violation of Rule 18(2), punishable under Rule 32(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband challenged that order before the Sessions Court at Ratnagiri. His revision was dismissed on September 18, 2014. He then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India <\/strong>and Section 482 CrPC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioner argued that the shop belonged to and was operated by his wife, who held the necessary licence and permit. He maintained that he ran a separate flour mill and had only prepared the bill after the bottle had already been sold by his wife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He also alleged that the complaint was mala fide. According to him, the inspector had demanded \u20b95,000 to allow the business activities to continue and initiated proceedings after the demand was refused. The Court did not finally decide this allegation but considered it along with the other circumstances while examining whether the prosecution should continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court examined a letter dated July 15, 2013, written by the complainant. It found that the letter itself showed that the incident occurred at the petitioner\u2019s wife\u2019s shop and that the wife had sold the bottle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPerusal of the letter dated 15th July 2013, would indicate that the incident took place on 29th March 2013 at the shop, of the wife of the Petitioner, where she was selling some items. In the said letter dated 15th July 2013, Respondent No.2 has himself admitted that the sale of the Pepsi bottle was undertaken, by the wife of the Petitioner and from her shop. The record indicates that, the sale was done by the wife and at her directions the bill was prepared by the Petitioner.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also noticed overwriting on the bill. The date of March 29, 2013 appeared to have been changed to June 29, 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPerusal of the bill which is issued for the said Pepsi bottle indicates that, there is a overwriting on the bill in respect of the month in as much as the date of 29 th March 2013 is shown to be as 29th June 2013. The correct date is 29th March 2013 as is evident from the letter dated 15th July 2013. In my opinion the overwriting even otherwise makes the entire case doubtful.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further noted that although the material showed that the wife had allegedly made the sale, no proceedings were initiated against her. Instead, the husband alone remained accused for more than a decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cConsidering the contents of the said letter, it is clear that the sale was conducted by the wife of the Petitioner. The complaint has been filed only against the Petitioner. The wife of the Petitioner is not made accused nor are any proceeding initiated against her.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court examined Rule 18(2)<\/strong>, which prohibits a retail dealer or another person from selling a packaged commodity above its retail sale price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court then considered the meaning of \u201csale\u201d under Section 2(r) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA perusal of the definition of \u201csale\u2019 as defined under Section 2(r) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, indicates that, \u201cSale\u201d, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means transfer of property in any weight, measure or other goods by one person to another for cash or for deferred payment or for any other valuable consideration and includes a transfer of any weight, measure or other goods on the hire-purchase system or any other system of payment by installments, but does not include a mortgage or hypothecation of, or a charge or pledge on, such weight, measure or other goods.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Applying this definition, the Court held that preparing a bill after completion of a transaction could not automatically make the husband the seller.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court added:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe case of Respondent No.2 in letter dated 15th July 2013 is that, the sale was by the wife of the Petitioner. It appears that, only the bill was made by the Petitioner on the instructions of his wife. The act of making a bill cannot be termed as conducting a sale, as making a bill would only occur after concluding the sale, which is already been concluded.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench strongly criticised the manner in which the husband had been prosecuted despite the complainant\u2019s own record identifying the wife as the person who made the sale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe complaint has proceeded on a totally erroneous assumption or misunderstanding that the sale is made by the Petitioner. It appears that as the Petitioner is the husband, he has been made accused on some misconception or misunderstanding. Criminal proceedings have serious consequences and cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The State argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 50(d) of the Legal Metrology Act<\/strong> and that the High Court should not entertain the petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court rejected this objection in the particular facts of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHaving an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar, and in special circumstances or for good reasons, the Petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances. The role of exhausting the alternate statutory remedy is a rule of self restraint, policy, convenience and discretion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court again underlined that the alleged seller had not been prosecuted, while the husband had been proceeded against apparently because his wife owned the shop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench noted that the wife had allegedly sold the soft drink, yet she was neither prosecuted nor made an accused. The husband appeared to have been prosecuted only because his wife owned the shop, even though there was no allegation that he operated it. Therefore, the prosecution was not supported by Rule 18(2) of the Legal Metrology Rules<\/strong> or Section 2(r) of the Legal Metrology Act<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court concluded that the prosecution was misconceived and misdirected because even the complainant admitted that the wife had made the sale. It held that the petition should be considered in the interest of justice and could not be rejected merely because an alternative legal remedy was available. Considering the alleged mala fides, overwriting on the bill and the complainant\u2019s own admission, the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court found that the case involved allegations of mala fide conduct, overwriting on the bill and a significant admission made by Respondent No. 2 in the letter dated July 15, 2013. Therefore, it considered the matter fit for exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Quashing both the Magistrate\u2019s process order and the Sessions Court\u2019s revisional order, the High Court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt would only be in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law that the order of issuance of process dated 24th July 2013 and the Order dated 18th September 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2013 are quashed and set aside.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law or provision<\/strong><\/td> What It Means<\/strong><\/td> Application in this case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Article 227, Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Gives High Courts supervisory power over subordinate courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction.<\/td> The husband invoked this provision to challenge the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Court.<\/td><\/tr> Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/strong><\/td> Preserves the High Court\u2019s inherent power to prevent abuse of court process and secure justice.<\/td> The Court used this power to quash the criminal proceedings.<\/td><\/tr> Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita<\/a>, 2023<\/strong><\/td> The corresponding provision under the BNSS preserving the High Court\u2019s inherent powers.<\/td> The judgment noted that old Section 482 CrPC now corresponds to Section 528 BNSS.<\/td><\/tr> Rule 18(2), Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011<\/strong><\/td> Prohibits a retail dealer or another specified person from selling a packaged commodity above its declared retail price.<\/td> The prosecution alleged that a \u20b925 Pepsi bottle was sold for \u20b926. The Court found that the husband had not made the sale.<\/td><\/tr> Rule 32(2), Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011<\/strong><\/td> Provides punishment where a Rules violation has occurred and no separate punishment is prescribed.<\/td> The husband was prosecuted under this provision for the alleged Rule 18(2) violation.<\/td><\/tr> Section 2(r), Legal Metrology Act, 2009<\/strong><\/td> Defines \u201csale\u201d as the transfer of goods from one person to another for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration.<\/td> The Court held that merely preparing a bill after the transaction did not make the husband the seller.<\/td><\/tr> Section 48, Legal Metrology Act, 2009<\/strong><\/td> Allows specified offences under the Act to be compounded by payment of the prescribed amount.<\/td> The State argued that the alleged MRP offence was compoundable on payment of \u20b92,000.<\/td><\/tr> Section 50(d), Legal Metrology Act, 2009<\/strong><\/td> Provides a statutory appeal against specified decisions or orders made under the Act.<\/td> The State argued that the husband should have used this alternative remedy. The High Court held that it was not an absolute bar to quashing proceedings.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Particular<\/strong><\/td> Details<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> Shri Vasudeo Tanaji Narvekar v. The State of Maharashtra and Another<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> Bombay High Court , Circuit Bench at Kolhapur<\/td><\/tr> Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td> Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction<\/td><\/tr> Case Number<\/strong><\/td> Criminal Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2014<\/td><\/tr> Petitioner<\/strong><\/td> Shri Vasudeo Tanaji Narvekar<\/td><\/tr> Respondents<\/strong><\/td> State of Maharashtra and Inspector, Legal Metrology, Rajapur Division<\/td><\/tr> Bench<\/strong><\/td> Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale<\/td><\/tr> Reserved On<\/strong><\/td> May 8, 2026<\/td><\/tr> Pronounced On<\/strong><\/td> June 29, 2026<\/td><\/tr> Original Complaint<\/strong><\/td> S.C.C. No. 121 of 2013<\/td><\/tr> Original Process Order<\/strong><\/td> July 24, 2013<\/td><\/tr> Revision Case<\/strong><\/td> Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2013<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n COUNSELS APPEARED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Party<\/strong><\/td> Counsel<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> For the Petitioner<\/strong><\/td> Advocate Atharva R.B., instructed by Advocate Saniya Patki<\/td><\/tr> For the Respondent-State<\/strong><\/td> S.N. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n