JUDGMENT : The petitioner, which manufactures and markets the consumer goods, such as, toilet soaps, detergents, cosmetics etc., filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus to set aside notice No.109/PC/PDR/02-03, dated 02.07.2002 issued by respondent No.1 as the same is illegal and void. The facts in brief are stated herein below. The Inspector of Legal Metrology, Proddatur, Kadapa District, respondent No.1 herein, inspected the trading premises of M/s.Sri Saibaba Agencies, Mydukur, Kadapa District and seized a package containing detergent cakes, which was styled as “Smart Saver Pack” and “White and Bright Offer” of “Rin Supreme”. Based on the said inspection and seizure, respondent No.1 served the impugned proceeding in the form of a notice on the petitioner. The same is assailed in this writ petition on various grounds. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceeding whereby respondent No.1 concluded that the petitioner contravened the provisions of Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act and Rule 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (for short ‘the Rules’), is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the plain language of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner has not violated any of the statutory provisions and the impugned proceeding constitutes sheer abuse of process of law. Opposing the said contentions, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies strenuously contended that the petitioner violated the standards of weights prescribed in Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule read with Rule 5 of the Rules. He further submitted that the impugned proceeding is only a notice whereby the petitioner was informed about the registration of a criminal case and that it is entitled to defend itself in the criminal case. I have given serious thought to the respective submissions of the learned counsel. A perusal of the impugned proceeding shows that the main thrust of the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner having stored for sale/sold the multi-piece package of Rin Supreme “White and Bright” “Smart Saver Pack”, contravened the provisions of Rule 5 read with Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules. A perusal of the impugned proceeding shows that the main thrust of the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner having stored for sale/sold the multi-piece package of Rin Supreme “White and Bright” “Smart Saver Pack”, contravened the provisions of Rule 5 read with Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules. The petitioner pleaded that it has complied with the requirements of all the relevant provisions including Rule 5 read with Third Schedule to the Rules. In order to resolve this dispute, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 39 of the Act prohibits a person from making, manufacturing, packing, selling or causing to be packed or sold etc., any commodity in packaged form to which Chapter IV applies unless such package bears thereon or on a label securely attached thereto a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration, made in the prescribed manner, of (i) the identity of the commodity in the package; (ii) the net quantity, in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity in the package; (iii) where the commodity is packaged or sold by number, the accurate number of the commodity contained in the package; (iv) the unit sale price of the commodity in the package; and (v) the sale price of the package and various other requirements enumerated therein. To enforce the provisions of the Act, the Rules are framed. Rule 2(j) defined “multi-piece package” as a package containing two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces of the same commodities of identical quantity, intended for retail sale, either in individual pieces or the package as a whole. Rule 5 of the Rules inter alia envisages that no person shall pre-pack, or cause or permit to be pre-packed, any commodity for sale, distribution, or delivery except in such standard quantities as are specified in relation to that commodity in the Third Schedule. Rule 17(1) of the Rules provides that every multi-piece package shall bear thereon, in addition to the declaration as required to be made under any other provisions of the Rules, a declaration contained in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of the said rule. Rule 17(1) of the Rules provides that every multi-piece package shall bear thereon, in addition to the declaration as required to be made under any other provisions of the Rules, a declaration contained in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of the said rule. Proviso to the said rule mandates that where individual pieces contained in a multi-piece package are packaged or labelled separately and are capable of being sold separately each piece shall bear thereon a declaration as to the quantity and the retail sale price thereof. Rule 17(2) provides that if individual pieces contained in the package do not carry retail sale price, it shall carry a declaration that they are not intended for retail sale. The Third Schedule to the Rules prescribes the quantities by weight, measure or number as are specified in the corresponding entries, against the commodities. In this case, we are concerned with Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule “Non-soapy detergent cakes/bar”. It provides that they shall be packed in the following quantities. “50g, 75g, 100g, 125g, 150g, 200g, 250g, 300g and thereafter in multiples of 100g.” The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that though the individual pieces, which were five in number, sealed in a single pack conformed to the standard weight envisaged in Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules, as indicated on the pack, individual units are not for loose sale, and hence, the entire multi-piece pack should be treated as one unit and the total weight of all the five pieces taken together should conform to the standard weight prescribed in the said provision. As per the definition of “multi-piece package” as reproduced above, the multi-piece package can contain two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces of the same commodities of identical quantity, intended for retail sale, either in individual pieces or the package as a whole. There is thus, no dispute that the commodity that is intended to be sold by the petitioner through his dealer and seized by respondent No.1 satisfies the definition of “multi-piece package”, even though all the individual pieces are intended to be sold as a whole. It is also not in dispute that the weight of the each piece packed is 125 gms. It is also not in dispute that the weight of the each piece packed is 125 gms. From the weights prescribed in Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules, as extracted above, it is clear that the weight of individual piece satisfies the prescribed weight indicated in the said provision. The only question to be decided is whether the multi-piece package should further conform to the weight prescribed in the said provision as a whole or not. Rule 17 of the Rules, which is noted above, envisages that every multi-piece package shall bear thereon in addition to the declaration as required to be made under any other provisions of the Rules, a declaration of the number of individual pieces contained therein and the retail sale price of the multi-piece package. As discussed above, every individual piece contained in the multi-piece package conforms to Rule 5 read with Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules. The further requirement is that the multi-piece pack should also conform to Rule 17 of the Rules. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader produced the multi-piece package in dispute. The wrapper of the pack contained thereon “125g X 5”, which indicates five pieces with the weight of 125 gms each. It also contains the retail sale price of the multi-piece package as “maximum retail price Rs.40.00 34.00”. On a careful analysis of the above-mentioned facts qua the Rules, I am of the view that the petitioner satisfied the requirement of Rule 5 of the Rules and also Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules by packing the individual pieces as per the prescribed weight in addition to conforming to Rule 17 of the Rules by indicating on the multi-piece package, the number of individual pieces contained therein and also the retail sale price of the multi-piece package as a whole. While dealing with the multi-piece package, it is necessary to read the requirement of Rule 5 in conjunction with Rule 17 of the Rules and so read, the conclusion is inevitable that in the case of a multi-piece package, there is no necessity of the total weight of all the individual pieces together conforming to the weight prescribed under Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules. It will suffice, if each individual commodity contained in the multi-piece package conforms to the prescribed weight. It will suffice, if each individual commodity contained in the multi-piece package conforms to the prescribed weight. Any other interpretation would only render the very purpose of providing for multi-piece package nugatory. My view of this derives support from the judgment of the Bombay High Court in M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited v. The Inspector of Legal Metrology, Kanhangad in Crl.MC.No.2714 of 2003(D), dated 17.03.2006. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi and another 2004(7) SCC 591 . I have carefully considered the facts of the said case and I am of the view that the said judgment, which dealt with the interpretation of retail sale price in the context of imposition of excise duty, has no relevance to the facts of the case on hand. As regards the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner can defend itself in the criminal case, I see no merit in it. In the present writ petition, the petitioner virtually is seeking quashing of the proceeding and the same parameters, which apply to the quashing of a criminal proceeding either under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India apply to the case on hand. The law is well settled that the constitutional Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. interdict criminal proceedings, where the allegations taken on their face value do not disclose commission of any offence in order to prevent abuse of process of law. (See State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561 and State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo 2005 (2) SCJ 804) On the interpretation of the provisions as above and on the admitted facts of the case, I am satisfied that no offence is made out. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in permitting the respondents to proceed with the intended prosecution. If, on the other hand, the criminal prosecution is not quashed, it would only result in subjecting the petitioner to the undue hardship of facing prosecution in a case, where the respondents failed to make out commission of any offence either by the petitioner or its dealer. If, on the other hand, the criminal prosecution is not quashed, it would only result in subjecting the petitioner to the undue hardship of facing prosecution in a case, where the respondents failed to make out commission of any offence either by the petitioner or its dealer. On the premises as above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceeding is quashed.