ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (i) Call for records in C.C. No. 7641/2018 pending before the Ld. XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru. (ii) Quash the order taking cognizance dated 22.03.2018 (Annexure-A) in C.C. No. 7641/2018, passed by the Ld. XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru and further proceedings thereto. (iii) Quash the Complaint dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure-B) registered as PCR No. 2208/2018 before Ld. XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru. (iv) Quash the Notices No. LMO/PC/CN/0071198/16-17 dated 25.04.2016 (Annexure-C1) and 02.05.2016 (Annexure-C2) No. ILM/NTPet/Notice/30/2016-17 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and all subsequent notices and proceedings against the petitioners. (v) Quash the seizure receipt no. 0071198 dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure-D) issued by Respondent No. 1. (vi) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Respondent No. 1, who is complainant filed a private complaint on 16.02.2018 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. 1973, pursuant to which, PCR No. 2208/2018 came to be registered before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru and cognizance was taken for offenses under Sections 11, 29, 18(1) and 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 on 22.03.2018 resulting in the registration of the criminal case in C.C. No. 7641/2018, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Sri. Srinivas Raghavan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that: 3.1. There is no basis for the complaint having been filed and later on for cognizance having been taken. The allegation against the petitioners is that three bundles of 12 retail units of Colgate Dental Cream each of 50 grams having been wrapped in a transparent BOPP (Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene) commonly known as shrink wrap has been seized from the retailer when inspection was carried out of the said retailer’s premises. 3.2. The said shrink wrap is only for the purpose of convenience and to enable better and safer transport of the product including storage, the shrink wrap contained 12 Colgate Dental Cream of 50 grams is not sold as a single unit nor displayed for sale as single unit and therefore, no offenses can said to be made out under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 2011’ for short). 3.3. 3.3. The offences under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011 would only arise if any product is offered for sale in its packaged container as a package without a maximum retail price being affixed on it. In the present case, the same is only of individual Colgate Dental Cream of 50 grams each which has been packaged separately and there being no sale or offer for sale of package of 12 Colgate Dental Cream, there is no offence which is been made out under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011. 3.4. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of this Court in Bausch and Lomb Eyecare Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. State in Crl. Pet. No. 5159/2013, dated 29.08.2019 more particularly Para-39 thereof which is reproduced hereunder: “39. Package or container used for convenience for safety or for transportation of goods contending wholesale or resale package is only a package carried out for safety of goods and as such, no declaration is required to be given on such transportation package, in as much as secondary packing is done for the purpose of facilitating transport and smooth transit of the goods to be delivered to the buyer in the wholesale trade. There is no dispute to the fact that on the wholesale package as well as on the retail package of the biscuits sold to the customer the necessary information as contemplated of the Act and Rules is reflected on the respective packages. It is the allegation in the complaint that secondary package in which the retail packages were packed do not contain the said information. Secondary outer packing done for transporting cannot be brought within the definition of wholesale package. Gunny bags are used for safety or transport can be set to be wholesale secondary package. Thus, in the instance case the Britania Biscuits manufactured in multiple crores which are to be distributed for sale all over India is a product which is having short span of shelf life, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that in reality the biscuits if exposed to moisture, would definitely loose their crispness and same being a bakery product it would become brittle and tend to break during transportation, as a result of which it would render the product unsaleble. Thus, individual retail packets for being transported is shrink wrapped and placed in a jar and thereafter stacked in card board boxes and each box would contain 100 or more retail packages. Thus, it would partake the character of wholesale package. In other words, the card board boxes containing 200 retail packets would partake the character of wholesale package and the said card board box contains the declaration as required to be made under Rule 24 of Packaged Commodity Rules. As such, contention of the prosecution cannot be accepted. That apart, in the instant case, records would also disclose that a declaration as required under Section 49(2) had been filed (as Annexure-C) and as such it is rightly contended that petitioner not being a nominated person, prosecution can be lodged only against such person who is nominated under Section 49(1) of the Act and the proceedings against petitioners is liable to be quashed. In other words, petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for namely, Crl. Pet. No. 4004/2012 deserves to be allowed.” 3.5. Relying on the above, he submits that the petition requires to be allowed. 4. Per contra, Sri. Rohith B.J. learned HCGP would submits that: 4.1. The three bundles of 12 retail units of Colgate Dental Cream were in fact available on the premises of the retailer in a package as one unit without maximum price and the other labeling requirements having been printed thereon. 4.2. Therefore, there is an offence which has been carried out. The offence being compoundable in nature, the petitioners can always compound the same or otherwise, if the petitioners wants to defend the proceedings, the petitioners could always place the defense before the learned Magistrate during the course of trial. 4.3. On these grounds, he submits that the above petition requires to be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri. Srinivas Raghavan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Rohith B.J. learned HCGP for respondents and perused the material on record. 6. Rule 18 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 is reproduced hereunder: “18. Provisions relating to wholesale dealer and retail dealers: (1) No wholesale dealer or retail dealer or importer shall sell, distribute, deliver, display or store for sale any commodity in the packaged form unless the package complies with in all respects, the provisions of the Act and these rules. Provisions relating to wholesale dealer and retail dealers: (1) No wholesale dealer or retail dealer or importer shall sell, distribute, deliver, display or store for sale any commodity in the packaged form unless the package complies with in all respects, the provisions of the Act and these rules. (IA) The wholesale dealer shall be allowed to sell the pre-packed commodities directly to the industrial and institutional consumers. (2) No retail dealer or other person including manufacturer, packer, importer and wholesale dealer shall make any sale of any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof. (2A) Unless otherwise specifically provided under any other law, no manufacturer or packer or importer shall declare different maximum retail prices on an identical pre-packed commodity by adopting restrictive trade practices or unfair trade practices as defined under [clause (nnn) and clause (r), respectively] of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986). (2A) Unless otherwise specifically provided under any other law, no manufacturer or packer or importer shall declare different maximum retail prices on an identical pre-packed commodity by adopting restrictive trade practices or unfair trade practices as defined under [clause (nnn) and clause (r), respectively] of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986). (3) Where, after any commodity has been pre-packed for sale, any tax payable in relation to such commodity is revised, the retail dealer or any other person shall not make any retail sale of such commodity at a price exceeding the revised retail sale price, communicated to him by the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer is not the packer, the packer and it shall be, the duty of the manufacturer or packer as the case may be, to indicate by not less than two advertisements in one or more newspapers and also by circulation of notices to the dealers and to the Director in the Central Government and Controllers of Legal Metrology in the States and Union Territories, the revised prices of such packages but the difference between the price marked on the package and the revised price shall not, in any case, be higher than the extent of increase in the tax or in the case of imposition of fresh tax higher than the fresh tax so imposed: Provided that publication in any newspaper, of such revised price shall not be necessary where such revision is due to any increase in, or imposition or, any tax payable under any law made by the State Legislation: Provided further that the retail dealer or other person, shall not charge such revised prices in relation to any packages except those packages which bear marking indicating that they were pre-packed in the month in which such tax has been revised or fresh tax has been imposed or in the month immediately following the month aforesaid; Provided also that where the revised prices are lower than the price marked on the package, the retail dealer or other person shall not charge any price in excess of the revised price, irrespective of the month in which the commodity was pre-packed. (4) Nothing in sub-rule (3) shall apply to a package which is not required, under these rules to indicate the month and the year in which it was pre-packed. (4) Nothing in sub-rule (3) shall apply to a package which is not required, under these rules to indicate the month and the year in which it was pre-packed. (5) No wholesale dealer or retail dealer or other person shall obliterate, smudge or alter the retail sale price, indicated by the manufacturer or the packer or the importer, as the case may be, on the package or on the label affixed thereto. (6) The manufacturer or packer or the importer shall not alter the price on the wrapper once printed and used for packing. (7) All retailers who are covered under the Value Added Tax (VAT) or Turn Over Tax (TOT) and dealing in packaged commodities whose net content declaration is by weight or volume or a combination thereof shall maintain a electronic weighing machine of at least accuracy class III, with smallest division of at least 1 g, with facility to issue a printed receipt indicating among other things, the gross quantity, price and the like at a prominent place in their retail premises, free of cost, for the benefit of consumers and the consumers may check the weight of their packaged commodities purchased from the shop on such machine. (8).......(1) All the marketing companies, manufacturers, packers, importers or distributors of Liquefied Petroleum Gas cylinder shall maintain a check weigher or non-automatic weighing instrument, digital or analogue, of Accuracy class-III (Max. 50 kg, e=10g) to check the weight of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas cylinder. (2) The marketing companies, manufacturers, packers, importers or distributors referred to in sub-rule (1), shall provide to the delivery man to measure or weigh the correct quantity of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas cylinder.” 7. A perusal of the said Rule indicates that no wholesaler, retailer or importer shall sell, distribute, deliver, display or store for sale any commodity in packaged form unless the package complies in all respect with the provisions of the Act and Rules. 8. Therefore, it is required that the alleged offender either shall sell, distribute, deliver, display or store for sale any commodity. In the present case, there is no allegation of selling, distributing or delivering. The only allegation is as regards display or store for sale. It is this term which is required to be interpreted by this Court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether prima facie an offence has been made out against the petitioners or not. In the present case, there is no allegation of selling, distributing or delivering. The only allegation is as regards display or store for sale. It is this term which is required to be interpreted by this Court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether prima facie an offence has been made out against the petitioners or not. 9. The mere display or storage of a particular product would not by itself constitute an offence, the same is followed by the word “For Sale.” Thus, the display or storage would have to be for sale of that commodity which is further caveated by the expression in the “packaged form.” Thus, taking the entire sentence into account, the display or storage has to be firstly for sale and secondly, the sale should be in the packaged form as against which, the complainant has been lodged. 10. In the present case, though there may be a storage of 12 retail units of Colgate Dental Cream of 50 grams each in three bundles, the same even as per the allegation made in the complaint is not for sale of those 12 retail units package as one. Furthermore, there is no allegation which has been made that the said bundle containing 12 retail units of Colgate Dental cream were being sold in the packaged form. 11. The essential elements of the penal provision would have to be fully satisfied, when taken as a whole I’am of the considered opinion that there is no offence which is made out on reading of the entire of the entire complaint with reference to provision of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011. 12. In the above background, when there is no offence which has been made out, the question of the offence being compoundable or not, would not arise. As such, the contention of Sri. Rohith B.J. learned HCGP that the offence is compoundable, in my considered opinion, being irrelevant is rejected. 13. As regards the contention that the same is a defense which has to be made out before the trial Court during the course of the trial, I am of the considered opinion that the defense would only have to be raised once the allegation indicating an offence being committed prima facie is established. 13. As regards the contention that the same is a defense which has to be made out before the trial Court during the course of the trial, I am of the considered opinion that the defense would only have to be raised once the allegation indicating an offence being committed prima facie is established. Here the allegations do not satisfy the requirement of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18, hence the question of raising the same as a defense would not at all arise. Hence, the said submission would also not hold by this Court any further. 14. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that no offence under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011 has been made out as such setting into motion the penal enactments was not required. It was required of the trial Court to examine the ingredients of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011 before taking cognizance of the offence and setting the criminal law into motion. The same not having been done, I am of the considered opinion that the order taking cognizance suffers from legal infirmities requiring this Court to interfere. As such, I pass the following: ORDER: (i) The order taking cognizance dated 22.03.2018 in C.C. No. 7641/2018 passed by the learned XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed. (ii) Consequently, the complaint dated 16.02.2018 in PCR No. 2208/2018 is quashed. (iii) Needless to say, the notice dated 25.04.2016 at Annexure-C1 and 02.05.2016 at Annexure-C2 being without any basis are also quashed. (iv) The seizure having been effected in the year 2016, the products having already passed their shelf life and having expired, the respondents are directed to destroy the same. (v) The respondents having seized the products contrary to the applicable law, the respondents are directed to make payment of the Maximum retail price thereof to the Petitioners within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.