Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONERS have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. PC, 1973 seeking quashment of the Criminal Complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 state of M. P. through Inspector, Weights and Measures, Ujjain, Madhya pradesh vide Criminal Complaint Case No. 2052/2004 against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who are the proforma defendants and according to the petitioners, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are not interested in the petition for quashing the proceeding. ( 2. ) IN nutshell the facts in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 are that on 10-3-2004, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Ujjain had purchased two Spark Plug from Surya Automobiles and Car Decor, Nagori Plaza, Tower chowk, Freeganj, Ujjain. The Inspector, Weights and Measures, Ujjain found printed on the packing of Spark Plug alongwith other declarations, name of "maruti Udyog Limited" by which he presumed that Maruti Udyog Ltd. were manufacturing these plugs but on opening the packed commodity, the word "mico" was embossed on plug. According to Inspector, Weights and Measures/respondent No. 1, it appears that MICO was manufacturer. On the package, by not writing the name of the manufacturer and only mentioning maruti Udyog Ltd. , causes confusion. The respondent No. 1 filed a criminal complaint before the learned CJM, Ujjain, in which it is alleged that on the seized package following declaration was mentioned:-"part Name - SPARK PLUG, Qty.- 1 Pa, Part Number -09482m00131, MRP Rs. /pc.- 46. 02 (inclusive of Taxes) February, 2004, Maruti Udyog Ltd. , Palam Guregaon Road, Haryana-122015. " ( 3. ) THE above mentioned declaration on the package was not show-ing for what purpose "february, 2004" was written and whether the Maruti udyog Ltd. was manufacturer or Packer of the packaged commodity was also not written and on opening of the package, there was spark plug on which MICO was embossed. On the basis of these declarations, it was confirmed that Spark plug was manufactured by MICO Company and on the package only Maruti udyog Ltd. , was written which creates confusion to the consumer. ( 4. On the basis of these declarations, it was confirmed that Spark plug was manufactured by MICO Company and on the package only Maruti udyog Ltd. , was written which creates confusion to the consumer. ( 4. ) IT is further stated in the complaint that according to Rules 6 (1) (a) and 9 (1) (a) of Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter called as Rules, 1977), if the manufacturer and packer of the commodity are different entity/persons, then on the package, both the names are required to be mentioned whereas on the package this information was not mentioned. It is also stated in the complaint regarding earlier prosecution against petitioner No. 1 Surya Automobiles related to the date 4-2-2003. This was the first case and complaint was closed by compounding the offence by the Company. On the package, name of commodity and manufacturer was also not mentioned. ( 5. ) ON the above mentioned complaint filed by the respondent No. 1, learned CJM took cognizance by order dated 24-6-2004 and issued notice to the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. On behalf of the petitioners, an application was submitted on 9-9-2004 before the learned CJM, Ujjain for recalling of the order of issuance of process and for dropping of further proceedings against the petitioners. The written submissions were also filed by the petitioners in support of the said application. ( 6. ) BEFORE the learned CJM, petitioners have submitted that prior to filing of complaint by respondent No. 1 a notice had been issued to Shri Jagdish khattar, Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd. , regarding initiation of prose-cution against Shri Khattar and the company for violation of Rules 6 (1) (a) and 9 (1) (a) of the Rules, 1977 which is punishable under Section 39/63 of the standard of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985/1976 (hereinafter shall be called as "the Act" ). The petitioners replied the notice through General manager (Legal) and Company Secretary dated 22-4-2004 wherein it is mentioned that the Spark Plug was being manufactured by the vendor of Maruti udyog Ltd. , namely, Motor Industries Company Ltd. under the brand name mico for and on behalf of Maruti Udyog Ltd. under an agreement with the said vendor. Maruti Udyog Ltd. , is the manufacturer of the Spark Plug in question which is sold as a Maruti Genuine Part (MGP ). Maruti Udyog Ltd. , is the manufacturer of the Spark Plug in question which is sold as a Maruti Genuine Part (MGP ). This letter sent by the general Manager was replied by the respondent and according to them, what was the agreement and undertaking between the Maruti Udyog Ltd. , and MICO company is a subject matter between them and not for consumer. They did not comply the requirement of Rule 6 (1) (a) and 9 (1) (a) of the Rules, 1977. Therefore, they are liable for prosecution and complaint was filed. ( 7. ) BEFORE the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have submitted that in view of the definition of "manufacturer" under Rule 2 (h) and definition of "packer" as per Rule 2 (k) of the Rules, 1977 as well as definition of "commodity in Packaged Form" as stated in Section 2 (b) of the Act, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners on the basis of the facts mentioned in the complaint. The petitioners have also submitted that as per provision under Section 74 of the Act, the prosecution should have been launched only against persons incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company on day today basis but the complaint has been filed in general against all the Directors. ( 8. ) THE learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, allowed the application in part by order dated 20-9-2004 (Annexure H) whereby on the basis of the filing of Form No. 32 regarding list of Directors in which the name of three Directors were not mentioned, i. e. , Motohiro Atsumi, Hirofumi Nagao and V. K. Malhotra, were discharged and prosecution was allowed to continue against rest of the persons. Aggrieved of this, the petitioners have filed mis petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC. ( 9. ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that spark Plug in question was clearly showing that on the packaged commodity, it was stated "be Good to Your Maruti, Maruti Genuine Parts (MGP) avoid spurious spares Part No. 09482n00131, Part Name Spark Plug, Qty 1 Pc. MRP : Rs. 46. 02 (inclusive of all taxes) February, 2004, Maruti Udyog Limited, Palam gurgaon Road, Haryana-122015" and inside the package, on the Plug MICO super was embossed. MRP : Rs. 46. 02 (inclusive of all taxes) February, 2004, Maruti Udyog Limited, Palam gurgaon Road, Haryana-122015" and inside the package, on the Plug MICO super was embossed. The learned Counsel has also placed one packet of Plug for perusal by this Court and this Court found embossed on the metal part of the plug, i. e. , ISI Mark and MONO of the Company, thereafter LIC. BOSCH w 8 DC made in India 488". On the plug neither the name of Maruti Udyog ltd. as manufacturer nor it is mentioned that it was manufactured by MICO for maruti Udyog Ltd. On the package also, it is not mentioned specifically that the plug was manufactured by MICO Company for Maruti Udyog and it was packed by Maruti Udyog Ltd. The contention of the L. C. for petitioners was that according to the agreement between the MICO Company and Maruti Udyog ltd. , the plug was manufactured by MICO company for Maruti Udyog Ltd. and maruti Udyog Ltd. has packed the plug. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 is the manufacturer and packer of Spark Plug in question and information mentioned on the package as mentioned hereinabove is clearly giving this information and understanding to the consumer. Therefore, on the plug itself there is no necessity of mentioning or embossing the name of Maruti Udyog Ltd. as manufacturer, in view of the definitions of "manufacturer", "packer" and "commodity in Packaged Form" as envisaged under Rules 2 (h), 2 (k) and 2 (b)of the Rules and Act respectively. It is also submitted that as per provision under section 74 of the Act, only persons incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company on day-to-day basis are to be prosecuted but the prosecution has been launched in general against the company and all its directors. ( 10. ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for State has supported the order passed by the learned CJM dated 20-9-2004 whereby the application of the petitioners was dismissed by a detailed speaking order. He has also submitted that bare perusal of the packet of plug, it reveals that on the packet "maruti Udyog Ltd. Be Good to Your Maruti" and other specifications are mentioned but nowhere it is mentioned that the plug was manufactured by maruti Udyog Ltd. or even got manufactured by Maruti Udyog from MICO ltd. He has also submitted that bare perusal of the packet of plug, it reveals that on the packet "maruti Udyog Ltd. Be Good to Your Maruti" and other specifications are mentioned but nowhere it is mentioned that the plug was manufactured by maruti Udyog Ltd. or even got manufactured by Maruti Udyog from MICO ltd. The consumer/purchaser would not be able to understand that the Plug which was inside the packet, was manufactured by Maruti Udyog because on the plug neither the name of Maruti Udyog Ltd. nor its Monogram or any sign which may give indication are not embossed or written. On the contrary, on physical verification, it is very easy to discern that the plug was manufactured by MICO Company which is a separate and independent entity in the market and packaging was done by Maruti Udyog Ltd. At the most, it would be said that maruti Udyog Ltd. might have purchased the plug available inside the package from MICO Company and under its packing selling in the market. But by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the plug was manufactured or got manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. from MICO Company under any agreement between them and packaging was done by Maruti Udyog Ltd. Therefore, it could not be said that the information available on the packet as well as on the plug itself is sufficient to say that the Maruti Udyog Ltd. was the manufacturer and packer both. On the contrary, it creates confusion. ( 11. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for parties, and after perusing the record, this Court is of the view that there is no substance in this petition worth for interference under the inherent power of this Court which is to be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases. This is also settled legal position by series of judgments rendered by Apex Court that the inherent power should be exercised for quashing the criminal complaint, only when bare perusal of the contents of the complaint, the same is not disclosing any prima facie case against the accused persons. This is also settled legal position by series of judgments rendered by Apex Court that the inherent power should be exercised for quashing the criminal complaint, only when bare perusal of the contents of the complaint, the same is not disclosing any prima facie case against the accused persons. To resolve the controversy, it would be apt to mention here in below the definitions of "manufacturer", "packer" and "commodity in packaged Form":- "manufacturer: "manufacturer" in relation to any commodity in packaged form means a person who, or a firm or a Hindu Undivided Family which, produces, makes or manufactures such commodity and includes a person, firm or Hindu Undivided Family who or which puts, or causes to be put, any mark on any packaged commodity, nor produced, made or manufactured by him or it. " "packer: "packer" means a person who, or a Firm, or a Hindu Undivided family which, pre-packs any commodity, whether in any bottle, tin, wrapper or otherwise, in units suitable for sale, whether whole sale or retail. " "commodity in Packaged Form : "commodity in Packaged Form" means commodity packaged, whether in any bottle, tin, wrapper or otherwise, in units suitable for sale, whether wholesale or retail. " ( 12. ) IN view of the above mentioned definitions of "manufacturer", "packer" and "commodity in Packaged Form", the information available on the packet and thereafter on the plug available inside the packet as mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the information mentioned on the packet is not satisfying the requirement of definitions of all the three "words" and there is every possibility of creating confusion in the mind of the consumer. The petitioner could have mentioned on the packet that the plug was manufactured and packed by Maruti Udyog Ltd. As a matter of fact, mentioning of this much fact would have also not satisfied the requirement because in fact Maruti udyog was not manufacturing but they got manufactured under the contract by mico Company and on the plug itself nothing is mentioned to show that it was got manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. from MICO Company. The commodity, i. e. , the plug and the package in which it is packed are giving two different informations regarding two different well known companies in our country. On the package, Feb. , 2004 is mentioned. The commodity, i. e. , the plug and the package in which it is packed are giving two different informations regarding two different well known companies in our country. On the package, Feb. , 2004 is mentioned. What for this month is mentioned, whether it is a date of packing or a date of manufacturing or a date of purchasing or taking delivery by Maruti Udyog Ltd. from MICO Company, therefore, mentioning of month Feb. , 2004 is also not giving any clear and unambiguous indication. To understand the ambiguity, suppose a customer has purchased this plug and used in his car, naturally the packet in which the plug is packed will be thrown away and while using the plug, some manufacturing defect or problem arises, then to whom, the consumer will approach, because on the plug nothing is mentioned giving indication of manufacturing and packing by Maruti Udyog ltd. It can be said that the consumer can approach the Maruti Udyog Ltd. on the basis of cash memo but that would also not suffice the problem because such kind of plugs are also being sold by MICO company in the market. Therefore, to attach the identity of the plug inside the packet of Maruti Udyog Ltd. , there must be something to say that the plug was purchased by the customer from maruti Udyog Ltd. and Maruti Udyog Ltd. owe responsibility for the said plug. The petitioners have filed the agreement between Maruti Udyog Ltd. and mico Company regarding manufacturing and purchase of the Plug by MICO company for Maruti Udyog Ltd. This is a matter between two company and there is no indication of such fact either on the plug or on the packet. After knowing this fact that Maruti Udyog Ltd. itself is not manufacturing the plug and the same is being got manufactured by MICO Company, the customer may purchase the plug from Maruti Udyog or its dealer or may not. Under this situation, he may also prefer to purchase the plug from MICO company directly. ( 13. ) THE learned Counsel for petitioners, to emphasize his arguments, submitted an example that if the commodity is in liquid form or granular form or consist of very small particles, then the interpretation given by the learned cjm and by the Inspector Weights and Measures, Ujjain fails. ( 13. ) THE learned Counsel for petitioners, to emphasize his arguments, submitted an example that if the commodity is in liquid form or granular form or consist of very small particles, then the interpretation given by the learned cjm and by the Inspector Weights and Measures, Ujjain fails. This example would not satisfy the requirement of the definition of "manufacturer", "packer", "commodity in Packaged Form". If the commodity is in liquid form or in granular form or consist of very small particles, then, certainly the same would be available either in the glass bottle, steel bottle, plastic bottle or any other container befitting to carry such commodity and the required information would have been mentioned on the packet or bottle or container as the case may be. We are every day seeing all these informations available on the packets for such commodities. ( 14. ) THE contention of the petitioners that the prosecution should have been launched as per provision under Section 74 of the Act against Working director, Person Incharge and responsible for day today business. But before the learned CJM, no such information was submitted by the petitioners. The petitioners have submitted information and Form No. 32 regarding three accused persons who were not the Directors. At the relevant time, the learned cjm has accepted the same and discharged them. The petitioners could have also submitted such information but did not do so for the reasons best known to them. Now this is the subject matter of trial and its effect would be considered by the Trial Court. ( 15. ) AT this stage, this Court, after evaluation of the factual and legal position, does not find any substance for interference under the inherent power. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Thus, the same is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that Trial Court should not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order and shall decide the case independently on its merit. M. Cr. C. dismissed.