2013 Supreme(Raj) 1301
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Shivlal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 596 of 2005.
Decided On : 16-05-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:D. Jasmatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1: A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondents:H.S. Balot, Advocate.
The provisions of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which restrict the power to search and seize goods to officers of a certain rank, do not restrict the powers of a police officer to receive information and investigate cognizable offenses under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
TRADEMARKS - SECTIONS 103, 104, 115(4) - CHARGING OFFENCES - COGNIZABLE OFFENCES - POLICE POWERS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - SECTIONS 154, 156 CRPC - SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLIED BY THE COURT IN REACHING ITS DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of selling fake cement under the J.K. brand name at a lower price than the genuine product. A police officer, not of the rank specified in Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, raided the petitioner's premises and seized the fake cement. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner for offenses under Sections 420 IPC, 103, and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner challenged the framing of charges, arguing that the police officer lacked the authority to search and seize the goods and that charges under Section 420 IPC could not be framed along with charges under Sections 103 and 104 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the police officer had the authority to receive information about the cognizable offenses under Sections 103 and 104 of the Act and to investigate the case under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also held that the provisions of Section 115(4) of the Act, which restrict the power to search and seize goods to officers of a certain rank, do not restrict the powers of a police officer to receive information and investigate cognizable offenses under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court further held that the evidence suggested that the petitioner was selling fake cement at a lower price to lure customers, which constituted an act of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether a police officer not of the rank specified in Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had the authority to search and seize goods suspected to be fake? 2. Whether charges under Section 420 IPC could be framed along with charges under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Sections 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to hold that the police officer had the authority to receive information about the cognizable offenses under Sections 103 and 104 of the Act and to investigate the case. 2. The court held that the provisions of Section 115(4) of the Act, which restrict the power to search and seize goods to officers of a certain rank, do not restrict the powers of a police officer to receive information and investigate cognizable offenses under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the framing of charges, holding that the police officer had the authority to search and seize the goods and that charges under Section 420 IPC could be framed along with charges under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
JUDGMENT
1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) whereby the revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 25.02.2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the learned trial court ordered for framing charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC read with section 103, 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act of 1999' hereinafter).
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant-respondent No. 3 lodged a report on 23.08.2001 at Police Station, Basni, Jodhpur, alleging therein that the fake cement of J.K. Brand was being sold in market on low price, therefore, he sent Shri Rakesh Dhariwal as a bogus customer to Shiv Building, from where, he purchased a bag of fake cement for consideration of Rs. 100/-, whereas the cost of a bag of J.K.Cement was Rs. 130/- in market. At that time, the petitioner got started the unloading of the cement bags from a Truck bearing registration No. RRR 5217, which was fake, marking thereon 'J.K.Cement'. It was alleged in the complaint that no manufacturing code pertaining to week, year and bag suppliers was marked on the bag of cement purchased by Rakesh Dhariwal, which is inscribed by the company. The complainant had informed to the company authorities about this incident, whereupon Shri B.Kumar (AVP) came there and inquired from the company that whether any goods were sent to Shiv Building by the company in last weak or not, upon which he received a negative report. As such, the above cement was confirmed to be fake. The petitioner was committing cheating with the company and public by selling fake and bad quality cement.
3. On receiving the above complaint, police registered a case for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC read with sections 103 and 104 of the Act of 1999 and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet before the trial court for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC read with sections 103 and 104 of the Act of 1999 against the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2.
4. The trial court passed the order dated 25.02.2003 for framing the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 420 IPC read with sections 103 and 104 of the Act of 1999. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.02.2003, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Court, Jodhpur and the same was transferred to the revisional court. However, the revisional court, vide order dated 22.11.2004, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.11.2004 passed by the learned revisional court, the petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial court had grossly erred in framing the charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that along with the charges of sections 103 and 104 of the Act of 1999, the charges under section 420 IPC cannot be framed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of Karnataka High Court rendered in Syed Kaleem v. M/s Mysore Lakshmi Beedi Works & Anr., reported in 1993 CRI.L.J.232 and the decision of Calcutta High Court rendered in Zahir Ahmed v. Azam Khan, reported in 1996 CRI.L.J. 290.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the learned trial court had committed illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 103 and 104 of the Act of 1999. It has been contended on behalf
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
