O R D E R This is an application filed by the petitioner-A1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in STC No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Macherla, Guntur District, for the offence under Section 72 for contravention of Section 39 read with Section 63 of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act 1976, read with Rule 4, Rule 29 (a) (b) (c) and Rule 23 (1) read with Rule 39 (1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977. 2. The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner is manufacturing the cigarette packets of FLPETIOHL 12000 and were transporting to various destinations. On 22-2-2006, at about 4-15 P.M., the Inspector, Legal Merology, Sattenapalli inspected the trading premises of M/s.Venkata Siva Sai Agencies, Macharla and found one person by name Medam Nageswara Rao was present in the possession of the package in question of FLPETIOHL 12000, displayed for selling in the trading premises. The said package do not bear declarations pertaining to the name and address of the manufacturer, total number of retail package and identify of the commodity of the package as required under Rule 29 (a) (b) (c) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977. As such the petitioner and others are liable to be prosecuted. Being aggrieved by the said prosecution, the petitioner preferred the present application to quash the proceedings by contending that the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Sathenapally inspected the trading premises and seized the Corrugated Fiber Container (“CFC” in short) containing `wholesale packages” of cigarettes therein. 3. The respondent issued a notice to the petitioner and other accused on 24-2-2006. He gave a reply on 31-03-2006 stating that he did not violate any provisions of law and it was clarified that the cigarettes are packed in retail packages that carry all requisite declarations. 10 or 20 of such retail packages are further packed in a carton with the intention to sell them in wholesale. The said cartons carry all the declarations required under Rule 29 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (“the PC Rules” in short). For the convenience of transport and storage, the said cartons are put in CFC and it cannot be treated as wholesale packages. Therefore, the petitioner requested to quash the proceedings. 4. The said cartons carry all the declarations required under Rule 29 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (“the PC Rules” in short). For the convenience of transport and storage, the said cartons are put in CFC and it cannot be treated as wholesale packages. Therefore, the petitioner requested to quash the proceedings. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented that the CFC is wholesale package. Therefore, the word “wholesale package” as defined under Rule 10 of the Package Rules and as the container did not contain any label exhibiting the particulars. The petitioner is liable for prosecution. 5. Rule 2 (10) of the PC Rules defines “wholesale package”, which reads as follows: “ “Whalesale package “ means the package containing: i) A number of retail packages where such first mentioned package is intended for sale, distribution or delivery to an intermediary and is not intended for sale direct to a single consumer. ii) A commodity sold to an intermediary in bulk to enable such intermediary to sell, distribute or deliver such commodity to consumer in similar quantities. iii) Packages containing 10 or more than 10 retail packages provided that the retail packages are labeled as required under the Rules.” 6. In UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. GODFREY PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED(1), where in Supreme Court held is as follows: “Carton of cigarettes are usually further packed in corrugated fiber board containers for facilitating transport in the course of delivery to buyers in the wholesale trade where there is any possibility of cartons being otherwise damaged in the course of transit. Naturally if such delivery of such cartons is affected to the buyer at the factory gate after further packing these cartons in corrugated fiber board containers. The further packing these cartons in which the packets of the cigarettes have been packed in the corrugated fiber board containers in not, indeed, in the course of delivery to the buyer in the wholesale trade at the factory gate buy is only for the purpose of facilitating smooth transport of cartons containing the packets of cigarettes to the buyer in the wholesale trade. Cartons packed in corrugated fiber board containers are not purchased by the consumers: So far as the buyer in the wholesale trade are concerned, theybuy the cartons of cigarettes in which the packets of cigarettes are packed in course of their wholesale trade for selling the same to the retailer or to the customers. It is only for the sake of convenience in the matter of smooth delivery of cartons in which the packets of cigarettes are packed that that the cartons may be further packed in corrugated fiber board containers for facility of transport and smooth transit of the cartons before delivery of the same to the wholesale buyer. 7. The “wholesale packages” referred to in the Complaint as a corrugated fibre board container (CFC) intended for the safe storage and transportation of wholesale packages of cigarettes placed within it. All the declarations required in terms of Rule 6 of the PC Rules are printed in retail packages. All the declarations required to be put on the wholesale packages in terms of Rule 29 of the PC Rules are printed on the said cartons. Therefore, the petitioner did not violate any of the provisions of the PC Rules. 8. In Crl.P.No.337 of 1998, this Court through the order dated 14-8-2001 quashed the proceedings in a similar case. After considering the definition of wholesale package and the explanation given by the petitioner in the reply notice and during the course of arguments, I am of the view that the corrugated fibre board container (CFC) is used only for the safe storage and transportation of the cigarettes and the retail packets of the wholesale rackets were kept. in the container contends the labels with all particulars as required under the Rules. The petitioner did not violate any of the Rules. Therefore, I am inclined to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Munisif Magistrate, Macharla, are hereby quashed. --X--