Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of an order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 26-4-82 and confirmed by an Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi on. 8-3-83 refusing to drop the proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner on a police report under Sec. 482, 483 and 485 IPC.

( 2 ) STATING briefly the facts are that on 5th February, 1981 S. I. Kanta Pershad of Special Cell (South Distt.) while on petrol with his staff came across one Ram Dhari near Sewa Nagar and found him carrying a bundle of printed lables fowara Chhap Bidi . Ram Dhari disclosed that he was an employee of the petitioner who was running a printing press at Haiderpur. On inspection of the press the S. I. discovered six bags containing fowara Chhap Bidi lables and dyes of different popular registered brands of Bidis. On further enquiry it was found that the petitioner was also having a godown at 519, Katra Neel Gali Krishna, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. On inspection of the said godown, 10 bags of loose Bidi and 73 bags of labels of different brand of bidies were found present in the godown and seized. On investigation it was found that the proprietors of various registered popular brand of bidies had not given any authority to the petitioner either to print labels of their brands or to pack for sale bidies with their brands of labels. It was thus found that the petitioner was counterfeiting the various registered popular trade marks of bidi manufacturers.

( 3 ) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate after taking cognizance ultimately found it to be a case under Sections 77 and 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and gave a notice of the same as envisaged by Section 250 of Cr. P. C. providing an opportunity to the petitioner to plead guilty or not guilty.

( 4 ) IT wound be seen that before the learned Magistrate issued the aforesaid notice the learned defence counsel moved an application under Section 258 Cr. P. C. for dropping of the proceedings against the accused on the ground that the offences of which cognizance was taken were non-cognizable and. the police officer who made a report about the same was not competent to investigate the same. His contention before the courts below as also before me is that, in fact, on 5th February 1981 thewhole investigation was over and it was late in the day, on 6th February 1981 that the police officer felt the need to seek permission of the court under Section 155 (2) of Cr. P. C. to investigate the case. He, therefore, thought that it could not be treated to be a police report and that the cognizance taken by the I learned Magistrate was incompetent. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge declined to agree with the argument. The learned Magistrate simultaneously found that the offences made out were under Sections 77 and 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and he proceeded in the matter accordingly. The petitioner is actually aggrieved of this order and he has again raised the same issue and has prayed that the proceedings as such be quashed.

( 5 ) THE proposition of law that has been canvassed by Mr. Dutt before me is that since on the date when the case in respect of non-cognizable offence actually came to be investigated the police officer investigating the case was not authorised to investigate as provided under Section 155 (2) Cr. P. C. it cannot be deemed to be a police report and cognizance. taken thereof would be deemed to be a nullity in the eyes of law.

( 6 ) AFTER consideration of the arguments urged on behalf of both the sides I find myself at complete disagreement with Mr. Dutt, learned counsels for the petitioner, who again, as in the trial court, has invited my attention to the case of Subhash Singh Modak v. State, 1974 Crl Law Journal 185, wherein it has been observed that the provisions of Section 155 (2) Cr. P. C. are mandatory and where objection to non-confromance is taken before termination of the case) the illegality

Click Here to Read the rest of this document