The record
Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.
- A man faced criminal charges after his wife sold a cold drink for one rupee above the maximum retail price in 2013.
- The court determined the prosecution was misconceived because the man did not own the shop and did not perform the sale himself.
- The judges also cited evidence of document tampering and noted the inspector's own records identified the wife as the seller.
- This ruling confirms that only the individual who actually performs the sale can be held criminally liable under the Legal Metrology rules.
What to watch next
- Likelihood of no further action against the wife due to the statute of limitations for the offence.
Who said what1
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
Anuj Dave
1 quote · 1 outlet
“This ruling does not mean shops can now charge above MRP that remains an offence. All the court clarified is that the person prosecuted must be the one who actually made the sale.”
In the article
…the prosecution as “misconceived and misdirected". It also noted that the date appearing on the bill had been altered, with March changed to June, which further cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Dave says: “ This ruling does not mean shops can now charge above MRP that remains an offence. All the court clarified is that the person prosecuted must be the one who actually made the sale. Here the shop was the wife’s and the sale was hers; the husband had only written the bill afterwards. You cannot fasten criminal liability on someone simply because he is related to the seller or happened to hand over…
Coverage1
All filed from India
Named India · Lanja · Ratnagiri · Anuj Dave · Bombay High Court · Clavius Legal
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.