Wife sold Rs 25 Pepsi for Rs 26, husband faced criminal case for 13 years; Bombay HC quashes case against him for this reason

Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale of Bombay High Court in a recent judgement quashed a 13-year-long criminal case against Mr Narvekar, a resident of Tal. Lanja, District Ratnagiri. He was accused of selling a 600-ml Pepsi bottle for Rs 26 when the MRP was Rs 25, while working in his wife’s shop. So he was basically accused of overcharging the Pepsi bottle by Re 1.

The high court pointed out that the criminal case against Mr Narvekar for overcharging a Pepsi bottle by Re 1 was wholly misconceived and misdirected as he merely prepared the bill, and the actual sale was conducted by his wife, the shop owner.

The Bombay High Court said that merely preparing a bill on his wife’s instructions doesn’t qualify as a sale under Section 2(r) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

What happened here?

On March 29, 2013, the Inspector of Legal Metrology, conducted an inspection of both Narvekar’s flour mill and his wife’s shop. While at the shop, the inspector bought a 600-ml Pepsi bottle whose MRP was Rs 25, but Narvekar charged him Rs 26 and even gave him a bill for it.

On July 15, 2013, the Legal Metrology Inspector wrote a letter to the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology detailing the events from his inspection of Narvekar’s wife’s shop on March 29, 2013. Based on these facts, the government filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lanja.

On July 24, 2013, the Judicial Magistrate ordered that a criminal process be started against Narvekar for committing an offence under Rule 18(2) read with Rule 32(2) of The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (Case No. 121 of 2013).

On September 18, 2014, the Ratnagiri sessions court rejected Narvekar’s challenge (Revision Application No.25 of 2013), and he could not evade criminal prosecution. So, he appealed to the Bombay High Court.

Advocate Atharva R.B. and Advocate Saniya Patki represented Narvekar before Bombay High Court. Narvekar’s advocate told the high court that the inspector had mala fide intentions when he first came to his flour mill and demanded Rs 5,000 bribe for allowing him to continue his operation.

Narvekar also told the court that when he refused to pay, the inspector threatened him and forced him to sign an authority letter, which he didn’t understand as it was in English language.

On June 29, 2026, Narvekar won the case (CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4415 OF 2014 ) as the high court quashed the criminal prosecution against him.

Also read: Selling pre-packaged items above MRP may attract jail term: Consumer affairs ministry

Why did he win the case?

Anuj Dave, Practice Head (Ahmedabad & Mumbai), Clavius Legal said to ET Wealth Online that he won the case because the high court found the case had been filed against the wrong person. The prosecution’s own records showed the Pepsi bottle was sold by the man’s wife, who owned and ran the shop. The husband had only written out the bill, on her instructions, after the sale was already complete.

According to Dave, the high court held that writing a bill is not the same as making a sale and the rule against overcharging applies to the person who actually sells the product, not to whoever prepares the invoice afterwards. Since he never made the sale, the case against him couldn’t stand, and the high court called the prosecution “misconceived and misdirected" and noted that the date on the bill had been overwritten (March altered to June), which made the whole case look doubtful.

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 an invoice.”

Also read: Overcharged Rs 67 on shoe MRP, Bata ordered to refund student, pay Rs 2,000 compensation. Here's what happened

What happens to the wife (the shop owner) now?

Nothing automatically follows from this judgment. Dave says the high court did not decide whether she broke the law it only held that the husband was wrongly prosecuted, and pointed out that she was never named as an accused in the first place. In principle, the authorities could look at the person who actually made the sale, but the transaction dates back to 2013.

Dave says: "A fresh case now would run straight into limitation — this is a fine-only offence with only a short window to prosecute apart from the fact that it is a minor, compoundable matter carrying a fine of just Rs 2,000. In practice, fresh action this long after the event is very unlikely."

Bombay High Court order discussion

A summary of the judgement is as follows:

Date on issue of Pepsi bill is overwritten which made one doubt the case
The court observed that the inspector’s letter mentioned the date of incident as March 29, 2013, but the Pepsi bottle bill indicates that there was an overwriting on the bill regarding the month as March 29, 2013 is shown to be as June 29, 2013.

Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale said: “In my opinion the overwriting even otherwise makes the entire case doubtful.”

Inspector’s letter showed Narvekar’s wife sold the bottle
The high court said that the Inspector’s July 15, 2013 letter says that the incident took place on March 29, 2013 at the shop of Narvekar’s wife, where she was selling some items. In the said letter, the inspector himself admitted that the sale of the Pepsi bottle was undertaken by Narvekar’s wife from her shop.

Therefore, the high court pointed out that the record indicated that the sale was made by the wife and at her directions, the bill was prepared by Narvekar.

Considering the contents of the letter, the court said, it is clear that the sale was conducted by the wife but the complaint was filed only against Narvekar with no accusation against his wife and no proceedings initiated against her.

Legal Metrology Act says no seller can charge more than MRP
The Rule 18(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities Rule, 2011) would indicate that, no retail dealer or other person including the manufacturer, packer, importer or wholesale dealer shall make a sale of any packaging form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof.

Rule 18(2) is applicable only to a retail dealer or person making the sale which in this case was Narvekar’s wife.

Narvekar merely prepared the bill but actual sale was made by wife
The high court said the definition of “sale’ is defined under Section 2(r) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The court said that the inspector’s letter said the sale was made by Narvekar’s wife and the bill was made by Narvekar on his wife’s instructions.

The Bombay High Court said: “The act of making a bill cannot be termed as conducting a sale, as making a bill would only occur after concluding the sale, which has already been concluded.”

Thus the high court said that the complaint against Narvekar has proceeded on a totally erroneous assumption or misunderstanding that the sale was made by him.

The high court said:“It appears that as the petitioner is the husband (Narvekar), he has been accused on some misconception or misunderstanding. Criminal proceedings have serious consequences and cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.”

Wife being owner of the shop has alternative remedy available
Section 50(d) of the Legal Metrology Act provides an alternate remedy namely appeal by the shop owner.

The high court said that having an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar, and in special circumstances or for good reasons, the petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances. The role of exhausting the alternate statutory remedy is a rule of self restraint, policy, convenience and discretion.

In the present case, the facts indicate that the person who sold the soft drink i.e. the wife has not been prosecuted and not been made an accused. Narvekar appears to be prosecuted only because his wife owns the shop.

The high court said: “It is not the case of Respondent No. 2 (inspector) that the shop was run by the Petitioner (Narvekar). Such prosecution is not supported by Rule 18(2) of the rules nor by Section 2(r) of the Legal Metrology Act.”

Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale of Bombay High Court said: “In my view the prosecution is misconceived and misdirected, especially when even the complainant admits that the sale is made by the wife. In such circumstances, it would be only in the interest of justice to entertain the petition. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the petition ought not to be rejected only on the ground of an alternative remedy being available.”

Thus the court quashed the criminal prosecution case against Narvekar.