The Bombay High Court on June 29, 2026, quashed the criminal prosecution against a man who faced a 13-year-old case for allegedly selling a cold drink above the maximum retail price. According to The Times of India, the case originated from an allegation that the man sold a 600-ml bottle of cold drink for ₹26 when its MRP was ₹25, resulting in an overcharge of ₹1. The man was working at his wife's shop when the incident took place on March 29, 2013. The Ratnagiri sessions court had initially rejected his challenge on September 18, 2014, leaving the criminal prosecution intact until the Bombay High Court's final intervention.
The case began when the Legal Metrology Inspector purchased a 600-ml cold drink bottle carrying an MRP of ₹25 during an inspection on March 29, 2013. As reported by The Times of India, the man allegedly charged ₹26 for the bottle and issued a bill showing the same amount. The inspector subsequently reported the incident to the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology in a letter dated July 15, 2013, which formed the basis for the government filing a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lanja. The magistrate ordered criminal proceedings on July 24, 2013 against the man for violating Rule 18(2) read with Rule 32(2) of The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The man told the court that the inspector had initially visited his flour mill and allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹5,000 from him in return for allowing him to continue operating the mill. According to The Times of India, he refused to pay the money and alleged that after declining the bribe, the inspector threatened him and made him sign an authority letter written in English, which he did not understand. The court described the prosecution as 'misconceived and misdirected' and 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. The high court found that preparing a bill on the instructions of the shop owner could not, by itself, be treated as a 'sale' within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
Anuj Dave, Practice Head at Clavius Legal, explained that the central reason the man succeeded was that the prosecution had proceeded against the wrong individual. As reported by The Times of India, Dave noted that the records showed the cold drink bottle had been sold by the man's wife, who owned and operated the shop, while the man's role was limited to preparing the bill on his wife's instructions after the sale had taken place. The court drew a distinction between preparing an invoice and actually carrying out a sale, with Dave emphasizing that the provision dealing with overcharging applies to the person who sells the product, not someone who merely prepares the bill. Dave clarified that "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".
The judgment does not automatically result in action against the man's wife, as reported by The Times of India. Dave noted that the court did not determine whether she had herself violated the law, and his wife had never been made an accused in the case. In principle, authorities could examine the conduct of the person who actually carried out the sale, but Dave indicated that fresh action this long after the event is very unlikely due to limitation issues and the minor nature of the offense carrying a fine of just ₹2,000. The court also noted that "in my opinion the overwriting even otherwise makes the entire case doubtful".
