JUDGMENT : S.K. AWASTHI, J. 1. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 381/2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) in furtherance of Crime No. 34/2012-13 registered at Department of Legal Metrology, Weights and Measurement Inspector (Mr. P.S. Barapatra), Badnagar, District Ujjain (MP) and order dated 20.05.2013, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 11(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2016. 2. The facts leading to filing of the instant petition are that the petitioners have launched some farmer friendly initiatives like e-Choupal. Through this initiative, it has made available to farmers in remote villages various goods and services at affordable rates and provides an easy access to markets for their agricultural goods. This e-Choupal is called Choupal Sagar/Farmer Facility Centres, so that the living standard of farmers be improved. 3. The petitioners have obtained necessary license for dealing in food products under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On 16.07.2012, respondent-Legal Metrology Inspector, Badnagar, District Ujjain (MP) visited Choupal Sagar situated at Ingoria Road, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) where the respondent took samples of two sealed packages of “Gagan Toor Dar” 5 Kilograms (when packed), Batch No. 102, packed on 27.06.2012, MRP Rs. 500.00/- letha 82 Packed on 07.05.2012 MRP Rs. 400.00/- manufactured by Padam International, 23, Mangal Udyog Nagar, Indore (MP). 4. The petitioners received letter dated 13.08.2012 and 03.10.2012 from the respondent thereby alleging that the aforesaid seized packet of Toor Dal was not in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the petitioners have violated the provisions envisaged under Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 11 (2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and have also called the petitioners to furnish the details for the original bill of purchase of the said product, list of Directors of the Company and the Memorandum of Articles and Association of the Company. The petitioners vide its letter dated 04.09.2012 provided alleged information to the respondent being sought vide letter dated 13.08.2012. 5. The petitioners vide its letter dated 04.09.2012 provided alleged information to the respondent being sought vide letter dated 13.08.2012. 5. Vide letter dated 15.10.2012, the petitioners submitted detailed reply to the notices dated 13.08.2012 and 03.10.2012 in which it was clearly mentioned that there is no violation of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, because the provisions of said section can only be invoked when the declaration and particulars are not printed on the labels/ packages in the manner prescribed in the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Any additional words printed on the label do not constitute violation of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The alleged violation was not relating to any declaration or particulars not being present on the package and was relating to use of additional words, thus, there was no illegality in the same. The requirement in the III Schedule for using words “when packed” was in reference to the goods on which words “when packed” have to be mandatorily used. However, use on the said words for other commodities do not violate the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. As per Rule 19 Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, any inspection of labels shall be done at the premises of the manufacturer/packer. However, as the ITC Limited was neither the manufacturer nor the packer, no inspection for the same could be carried out in the premises of the company. Further as per Rule 6(4) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, the responsibility for making proper declaration on labels is of the manufacturer/packer, who packs any commodity for sale, distribution or delivery. It is further pointed out that the petitioner is a retailer and the petitioner had not meddled with or tampered the declaration made on the label. In case of any default, the same is only attributable to the manufacturer/packer. The product was manufactured by “Padam International” 23, Mangal Udyog Nagar, Indore (MP) and the petitioners had purchased the said package from M/s. Jain Traders, 40/3, Kalani Mohalla, Indore. Therefore, the petitioners have not committed any violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Thus, no proceedings should be initiated against them. 6. Therefore, the petitioners have not committed any violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Thus, no proceedings should be initiated against them. 6. The respondent has also issued similar communications to the manufacturer, who accepting its mistake has pleaded guilty before the respondent vide letter dated 07.08.2012 and was agreed to pay the fine imposed by the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent vide its order dated 10.04.2013 imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on the aforesaid manufacturing company and has subsequently arrived at a settlement with the aforesaid manufacturing company. Once the said offence had been compounded against the manufacturer, the proceedings ought to have been dropped. However, the respondent has initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, alleging violation of Section 18 (1) read with Section 36 (1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 11 (2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. On the basis of the complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) took cognizance of the offence, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/company that in the complaint, the nominee of the petitioner/company and its employees both have been arrayed as accused persons. ITC Limited is one company and Choupal Sagar is only a retail shop of the Company. It is not a separate legal entity. The license for the shop is also in the name of the company. Thus, the company itself through its nominee could have been arrayed as an accused and thus, prosecution against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is bad in law. 8. It is further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) has failed to consider that the complaint is barred by limitation, because the complaint relates to the offence referred to in Section 34 (2) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, however, the complaint is made under Section 38 (1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and both the sections provide only fine for the alleged offence. Thus, the limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is of three months only. In the present case, alleged inspection was made on 16.07.2012 and the limitation for filing complaint was till 16.10.2012, whereas the complaint has been filed on 20.05.2013. Thus, the limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is of three months only. In the present case, alleged inspection was made on 16.07.2012 and the limitation for filing complaint was till 16.10.2012, whereas the complaint has been filed on 20.05.2013. Thus, the complaint is barred by more than ten months. Under these circumstances, the complaint, in fact, amounts an abuse of process of law as against the petitioners. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners prays for quashment of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 381/2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) and order dated 20.05.2013, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 11 (2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2016. 9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh has submitted that the contents of the complaint discloses commission of offence punishable under Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 11 (2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2016 and there is no error committed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) in taking cognizance against the petitioners for said offence. Therefore, the respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh seeks dismissal of the present petition, being devoid of merits. 10. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record/documents filed along with the instant petition. 11. From perusal of the complaint filed by Department of Legal Metrology, Weights and Measurement Inspector (Mr. P.S. Barapatra), Badnagar, District Ujjain (MP), it appears that on 16.07.2012 he visited Choupal Sagar situated at Ingoria Road, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) and took two sealed packages of “Gagan Toor Dal” 5 Kilograms (when packed), Batch No. 102, packed on 27.06.2012, MRP Rs. 500.00/- letha 82 Packed on 07.05.2012 MRP Rs. 400.00/- manufactured by Padam International, 23, Mangal Udyog Nagar, Indore (MP). On inspection, he found that a declaration was mentioned in the packet with regard to net weight and also use of words “when packed” which is in violation of Rule 11 (2) (3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2016 and punishable under Section 18 (1) read with Section 36 (1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. 12. On inspection, he found that a declaration was mentioned in the packet with regard to net weight and also use of words “when packed” which is in violation of Rule 11 (2) (3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2016 and punishable under Section 18 (1) read with Section 36 (1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. 12. Rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 provides, as under:- “11. General provisions relating to declaration of quantity:- (1) In declaring the net quantity of the commodity contained in a package, the weight of wrappers and materials other than the commodity shall be excluded. (2) Where a commodity in a package is not likely to undergo any variation in weight or measure, on account of the environmental conditions, the quantity declared on the package shall correspond to the net quantity which will be received by the consumer and the declaration of quantity of the commodity as declared on the package and the declaration of quantity on such package shall not be qualified by the words ‘when packed’ or the like. (3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-rule (4), where a commodity in package is likely to undergo variations in weight or measure on account of environmental conditions and such variation is negligible, the declaration of quantity in relation to such package shall be made after taking into account such variation so that the consumer may receive not less than the net quantity of the commodity as declared on the package, and the declaration of quantity on such package shall not also be qualified by the words ‘when packed’ or the like. (4) The declaration of quantity in relation to commodities which are likely to undergo significant variations in weight or measures on account of environmental or other conditions may be qualified by the words “when packed” as specified in the Third Schedule.” 13. As per the requirement of the said provision, the declaration is required on the net quantity of the commodity contained in a package. In the present case, package of ‘Toor Dal’ purchased by the Legal Metrology Inspector, the net weight of the commodity ‘Toor Dal’ is specifically mentioned as 5 Kilograms (when packed), however, in the declaration, additional word “when packed” was also referred. In the present case, package of ‘Toor Dal’ purchased by the Legal Metrology Inspector, the net weight of the commodity ‘Toor Dal’ is specifically mentioned as 5 Kilograms (when packed), however, in the declaration, additional word “when packed” was also referred. However, there is nothing in the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2016 that additional words used in the declaration will be in violation of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. 14. Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 provides, as under:- “18. Declarations on pre-packaged commodities: (1) No person shall manufacture, pack, sell, import, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged commodity unless such package is in such standard quantities or number and bears thereon such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Any advertisement mentioning the retail sale price of a pre-packaged commodity shall contain a declaration as to the net quantity or number of the commodity contained in the package in such form and manner as may be prescribed.” 15. In the aforesaid section also, there is no provision that additional words as mentioned in the commodity shall be punishable. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner/company is not the manufacturer or packer of the commodity. The petitioner- company is the retail dealer. 16. Rule 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 provides, as under:- “21. Inspection of quantity and error in packages at the premises of the wholesale dealer or retail dealer:- (1) Ordinarily, any test in relation to the net quantity contained in a package shall not be carried out at the premises of the retail dealer or the wholesale dealer, unless:- (i) a complaint is received by the Director or the Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer to the effect that the package sold or delivered to the complainant does not contain the quantity declared on such package or on the label affixed thereto. (ii) the Director or the Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer has reason to suspect that any package has been tampered with or that there has been any pilferage or leakage of the commodity contained in the packages. (ii) the Director or the Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer has reason to suspect that any package has been tampered with or that there has been any pilferage or leakage of the commodity contained in the packages. (iii) the Director or the Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer and any package, or any label affixed thereto, does not bear thereon all or any of the declarations which are required to be made under these rules. (2) Where any test is carried out in pursuance of the provisions of sub-rule (1), the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer shall verify whether the quantity contained in the package corresponds to the quantity declared on such packages or any label affixed thereto and where quantity contained in package is less than the declared quantity, whether the deficiency is more than the maximum permissible error in relation to that commodity. (3) Where the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer finds on a test carried out under this rule that the error in deficiency in any package kept or stored for sale, distribution or delivery at the premises of the retail or wholesale dealer is more than the maximum permissible error in relation to that commodity, he shall seize such package and take appropriate action against the retail dealer or the wholesale dealer, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Act: Provided that where the package bears the legend ‘when packed’ no punitive action shall be taken against the retail dealer or wholesale dealer if the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer is satisfied after necessary test that the deficiency in the net quantity contained in package is due to environmental conditions. (4) Where as a result of any test made under this rule, it is found that the net quantity contained in the package conforms to the declared quantity or where there is a deficiency, such deficiency is not more than the maximum permissible error, the retail dealer shall be at liberty to sell or deliver or distribute such commodity at the price determined on the basis of the quantity found on such tests. (5) Where, as a result of any test made under this rule, it is found that any package, or any label affixed thereto, does not bear thereon all or any of the declarations required to be made under these rules, it shall be lawful for the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer to make such enquiries as to the source from which such package was received by the whole sale dealer or the retail dealer as the case may be, as he may think fit.” 17. In the present case, the said product was manufactured by Padam International, 23, Mangal Udyog Nagar, Indore (MP). The petitioner-company purchased the said package from M/s. Jain Traders, 40/3, Kalani Mohalla, Indore (MP). There is no allegation that the petitioner/company has meddled or tampered with the declaration made on the label. Thus, in case of any default, the same is attributable to the manufacturer/packer and not against the petitioner/company. Therefore, inspection in relation to net quantity contained in the package should be carried out at the premises of the product and not in the retail dealer. The manufacturer/packer had already accepted its mistake and the offence against it had already been compounded. Under these circumstances, there was no reason for initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners. 18. The violation of Rule 11 (2) (3) and (4) of the Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011 as amended by (Amendment) Rules,2016 read with Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 is punishable under Section 34 of the of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, which is punishable with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to five thousand rupees and for the second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 19. In the present case, the inspection was carried out on 16.07.2012 and necessary information were sought from the petitioner-company on 13.08.2012 and 03.10.2012. However, the complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) on 20.05.2013, after ten months of the date of alleged incident. 20. 19. In the present case, the inspection was carried out on 16.07.2012 and necessary information were sought from the petitioner-company on 13.08.2012 and 03.10.2012. However, the complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) on 20.05.2013, after ten months of the date of alleged incident. 20. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that except as otherwise provided else- where in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. The period of limitation shall be six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only. Thus, it is clear that the complaint has been filed after a period of limitation, which is prescribed as six months and Section 469 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly creates a bar for taking cognizance of the offence after lapse of period of limitation. Section 473 of the Code gives a very wide power to the Court for taking cognizance even after the expiry of period of limitation provided that the Court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. This power has been conferred on the Courts not withstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of Chapter XXXVI in which Sections 467, 468 and 469 also appear. But, in the present case, the respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. A reading of the aforementioned sections thus makes it very clear that the Court cannot take cognizance of an offence of the categories of cases specified in sub-section (2) of Section 468 after the lapse of the period of limitation mentioned therein. 21. The date of alleged offence is 16.07.2012 and the trial Court has taken the cognizance of the offence on 20.05.2013, without satisfying itself about the delay, and therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in taking cognizance against the petitioners, after the period of limitation. 22. 21. The date of alleged offence is 16.07.2012 and the trial Court has taken the cognizance of the offence on 20.05.2013, without satisfying itself about the delay, and therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in taking cognizance against the petitioners, after the period of limitation. 22. For the reasons stated above, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 714/2014 succeeds and order dated 20.05.2013 passed in Criminal Case No. 381/2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) is hereby quashed and all the consequential proceeding arising out of Crime No. 34/2012-13 registered at Department of Legal Metrology, Weights and Measurement Inspector (Mr. P.S. Barapatra), Badnagar, District Ujjain (MP) against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 11 (2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2016 is hereby quashed.