The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. over the alleged sale of a 600 ml soft drink bottle carrying a higher Maximum Retail Price (MRP) at a restaurant than in the open market. The Court held that, at the time of the alleged incident in October 2016, there was no legal prohibition against manufacturers declaring different MRPs for identical pre-packaged products sold through different trade channels.
Background of the Case
The case arose after officials of the Legal Metrology Department inspected a restaurant in Katra on October 25, 2016. During the inspection, they found that a 600 ml Coca-Cola bottle carried an MRP of ₹60, whereas a similar bottle sold in the general market carried an MRP of ₹35.
Based on this price difference, the department filed a criminal complaint alleging violations of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules 2(bc) and 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. A Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the company.
The company challenged the proceedings before the High Court, arguing that the bottles contained all mandatory declarations, including the printed MRP, and that there was no allegation that any bottle had been sold above its own declared MRP.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Rajnesh Oswal examined the statutory provisions applicable at the time of the alleged offence and noted that Section 18 primarily requires pre-packaged commodities to carry prescribed declarations, including the retail sale price.
The Court observed that Rule 18 of the 2011 Rules prohibited the sale of a packaged commodity above its declared MRP but did not, in 2016, prohibit manufacturers from declaring different MRPs for identical products intended for different commercial environments.
Referring to the later amendment introduced with effect from January 1, 2018, the bench noted that the restriction on declaring different MRPs for identical pre-packaged commodities was inserted only through Rule 18(2A).
“The restriction was brought into force for the first time only w.e.f. 01.01.2018,” the bench observed, adding that the provision could not be applied retrospectively to conduct that occurred in 2016.
The Court also found that Rule 2(bc), relied upon by the prosecution, was merely a definitional provision and did not create any penal liability.
Court's Decision
Holding that no offence was disclosed on the admitted facts, the High Court concluded that continuing the criminal prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
“The uncontroverted facts fail to disclose the commission of any offense by the petitioner-company,” the Court stated while quashing the criminal complaint, the Magistrate's cognizance order, and all consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Reasi.
Case Details
Case Title: Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Controller Legal Metrology, Reasi & Anr.
Case Number: CRMC No. 395/2017
Judge: Justice Rajnesh Oswal
Decision Date: 03 July 2026
