The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages over allegations that it sold identical Coca-Cola bottles at different Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs), holding that the legal framework in force in 2016 did not prohibit such pricing.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that neither the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 nor the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 barred manufacturers from declaring different MRPs for the same pre-packaged product when the alleged violation took place.
The case arose from an inspection conducted by the Legal Metrology Department on 25 October 2016 at a Domino’s Pizza outlet in Katra. During the inspection, officials found that a 600 ml Coca-Cola bottle carried an MRP of Rs 60 at the restaurant, while the same quantity of the beverage was available in the open market with an MRP of Rs 35.
The department subsequently filed a complaint alleging that consumers had been overcharged by Rs 25 per bottle. A Judicial Magistrate First Class (Munsiff) in Reasi took cognisance of the complaint and issued summons to the company, prompting Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages to challenge the proceedings before the High Court in 2017.
Allowing the petition, the High Court observed that the restriction on differential MRPs was introduced only after Rule 18(2A) was inserted into the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules through a 2017 amendment, which became effective from 1 January 2018. Since the inspection was conducted before the amendment took effect, the Court held that no offence was made out under the law prevailing at that time.
Company’s Defence Accepted
Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages argued that the bottle complied with all statutory labelling requirements, including the printed MRP of Rs 60, and that there was no allegation that the product had been sold above the price displayed on the package.
The company also submitted that different MRPs for identical products sold through separate trade channels, including restaurants and other premium outlets, were an accepted commercial practice and could not be equated with pricing in conventional retail stores.
It further argued that the prohibition on dual MRPs became legally enforceable only from 1 January 2018 and therefore could not be applied retrospectively to an inspection conducted in 2016.
The High Court accepted these submissions, observing that Rule 18, in its original form, contained no restriction on declaring different MRPs for identical products. The Court noted that Rule 18(2A), inserted through the 2017 amendment, introduced the prohibition to prevent manufacturers, packers and importers from adopting unfair or restrictive trade practices by declaring multiple MRPs for identical pre-packaged commodities, unless specifically permitted under another law.
Holding that the facts presented by the prosecution did not disclose any criminal offence under the legal provisions applicable in 2016, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages.
