JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The petitioner is hereby assailing the process issued against him in respect of a complaint made by Shri Patil T.K., Inspector of Legal Metrology, 72, Moreshwar, Patankar Marg, Pipe Road, Kurla, Mumbai in respect of violation of provisions of section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for convenience) and Rule 23(1) of the Standards of Weights Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules" for convenience). 2. Shri T.K. Patil filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Room No. 31, Vikhroli, Mumbai alleging that the petitioner did not mention the date of manufacture of "Birla White Portland Cement" though the net weight, week and year of manufacture, maximum retail price (inclusive of all taxes) was printed on the package. 3. For the petitioner Shri Shah submitted that if the provisions of section 39 of the Act and Rule 23(1) of the Rules read with Rule 6(1) are perused carefully, there is no obligation on the part of the manufacturer or wholesaler or retailer to mention the date of manufacture on such packages or bags. Shri Saste appearing for the State of Maharashtra could not contradict this submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Shri Shah. 4. If section 39 of the Act is carefully read, there is no obligation on the manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer to mention the date of manufacture on such packages or bags, Even if Rules 23(1) and 6(1) of the Rules are perused carefully, no such obligation has been indicated. Therefore, the manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer cannot be put to trial on account of the failure to mention the date of manufacture on such package or bag which has been brought to shop or commercial institute for sale or for exhibition to sale. If the month and year of manufacture has been printed, the weight has been mentioned, retail price (inclusive of all taxes) has been mentioned, it would be sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act and the abovementioned rules. 5. When his complaint was presented before the said Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, it was the duty of the said Magistrate to apply his judicial mind towards the allegations made in the complaint by perusing the relevant provisions of law before thinking of issuing the process. 5. When his complaint was presented before the said Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, it was the duty of the said Magistrate to apply his judicial mind towards the allegations made in the complaint by perusing the relevant provisions of law before thinking of issuing the process. As it has not been done, the learned Magistrate has landed in error of issuing the process. Needless to say that appearing in a Court for trial exposes such a person to lot of humiliation, expenditure and annoyance. It is an annoying ordeal which takes away such a person from his occupation of livelihood and other business which he has to do in his life including social activities. Law does not contemplate that. Therefore, this Court exercises the jurisdiction and power vested in it in view of Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as in view of provisions of section 482 of Cri.P.C., 1973. The process issued against the present petitioners by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Room No. 31, Vikhroli, Mumbai in respect of Criminal Case No. 203/C of 1996 stands quashed. He need not attend that Court for this case. 6. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court. Order accordingly. -----