ORDER : The petitioners are the accused Nos.7 and 8 in S.T No.430/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioners and others, alleging offences punishable under Sections 11 (1)(b), 11 (1)(e) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short, Act 2009) and also under Rule 10 of the Kerala Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2012 (for short, Enforcement Rules), which are punishable under Section 29 of the Act 2009 and Rule 26 of the Enforcement Rules. It is also alleged that, there is violation of Rule 9(1)(a) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rule, 2011 (for short Rule 2011), Section 18(1) of Act 2009 which is punishable under Rule 32(2) and Section 36(1) of the Act 2009. 2. The Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology, Ernakulam, inspected the trade premises of M/s Cinepolis, functioning in Building No.66/6284/B-11 of Cochin Corporation and detected the following offences: "1. The firm had sold commodity named "BS POPCORN'(solid in nature) in quantities referred to as "SMALL" and issued invoice to this effect vide CM No.2469951. 2. The firm had sold commodities named "CHOCALATE SHAKE" (semi solid in nature) in quantities referred to as "REG" and issued invoice to this effect vide CM.No:2470111. 3. The firm had sold commodities named "CAPUCCINO" (liquid in nature) in quantities referred to as "1" and issued invoice to this effect vide CM No:2470111. 4. The above said firm exhibited and kept for sale the packages of drinking water named "KINLEY WITH ADDED MINERALS COCA COLA, 10.6.16 Rs.50/" which did not bear there on legible and prominent declarations regarding sale price and month & year of packing. This said declarations in respect of sale price and month & Year of packing were not conspicuous." 3. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioners. Heard senior counsel Sri.Jaiju Babu an also the Public Prosecutor. 5. According to the prosecution, no person shall in relation to any goods, things or service issue or exhibit any price lists, invoice cash memo or other document or express in relation to any transaction or protection, any quantity or dimension otherwise than in accordance with the standard units of weight measures or numeration. 6. 5. According to the prosecution, no person shall in relation to any goods, things or service issue or exhibit any price lists, invoice cash memo or other document or express in relation to any transaction or protection, any quantity or dimension otherwise than in accordance with the standard units of weight measures or numeration. 6. The allegation against the petitioners who are 7th and 8th accused are about the violation of Rule 9(1)(a) of Rule 2011. Rule 9(1)(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, only states that declaration should be legible and prominent. According to the petitioners, the rule undisputedly permits printing using the laser printing methods. According to the petitioners, there is no dispute that the optimum result that could be obtained by using the laser printing methods. It is further submitted by the petitioners, that the laser printing was legible and prominent. Rule 9(1)(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, (for short Packaged Commodities Rules) is also extracted hereunder: " 9. Manner in which declaration shall be made. -(1) Every declaration which is required to be made on a package under these rules shall be- (a) legible and prominent; " 7. Rule 9 says about the manner in which the declaration shall be made. Rule 1(a) says that every declaration which is required to be made on a package under this Rule shall be legible and prominent. The counsel for the petitioner made available a bottle of 'Kinley', packaged drinking water. The Public Prosecutor also produced the bottle seized by the officer concerned. This Court perused the same. A perusal of the same would show that there is laser printing in the bottle. It cannot be said that the same is not legible and prominent. The counsel for the petitioners produced a news item of the Central Minister, which published in Times Of India dated 24.09.2024 in which it is stated that the Minister bats for laser printing in water bottles. Since the printing is legible, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners is not necessary. Therefore, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners alone in S.T No.430/2017 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam are quashed.