Skip to content

CS Executive · Economic, Commercial and Intellectual Property Laws · Legal Metrology

A retailer, Gupta Stores, is caught selling packed detergent that does not conform to the declarations on the package, and this is already his third offence under section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Which punishment is correctly stated for this subsequent offence?

For a subsequent offence of dealing in a pre-packaged commodity not conforming to its declarations, the fine is not less than fifty thousand rupees and may extend to one lakh rupees, or imprisonment up to one year, or both. Lower fines apply to first and second offences.

  1. AFine of up to twenty-five thousand rupees only
  2. BFine of not less than fifty thousand rupees but up to one lakh rupees, or imprisonment up to one year, or bothCorrect
  3. CFine of up to fifty thousand rupees only, with no imprisonment
  4. DImprisonment of up to two years only

Explanation

Under section 36(1), the first offence draws a fine up to Rs 25,000 and the second up to Rs 50,000. For the subsequent offence the fine must be at least Rs 50,000 and may extend to Rs 1 lakh, or imprisonment up to one year, or both. The two-year term is from section 40, which concerns obstruction.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Legal Metrology shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Legal MetrologyFree diagnostic mock

More Legal Metrology questions