The central legal point established in the judgment is that the misuse of ISI mark and the recovered empty jars did not constitute an offense under Section 11 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986.

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2008 (P3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad and impugned order dated 22.07.2008 (P4) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner-Bureau filed a complaint under Section 11 read with Section 33 for prosecuting and punishing the accused respondents for violation of the provisions of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 on the ground that the report dated 11.07.2007 was received to the effect that the accused are misusing the 'ISI' Mark and also doing illegal manufacturing and sale of packaged drinking water. On the basis of the report dated 11.07.2007, search and seizure operation was conducted in the premises of the respondents accused on 12.07.07. At the time of search and seizure operation, the seizure memo dated 12.07.2007 was prepared by the team leader which was duly signed by the accused and other employees of the accused as well as all other team members of the complaint. It was therefore, alleged that the accused-respondents were using stickers with ISI mark and CM/L-9321469 along with their own address on 20 liters jars of packaged drinking water and these stickers were pasted on the jars. The accused was using stickers on these jars with ISI mark without having licence of ISI from the complainant. Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, vide its order dated 31.08.2007 summoned the accused under Section 11 read with Section 33 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. Aggrieved by the above mentioned summoning order dated 31.08.2007, the respondents filed a criminal revision under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, claiming therein, that no offence under Section 11 read with Section 33 of the Act is made out against the accused. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.

3. Hence, the judgment dated 11.07.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad as well as the judgment dated 22.07.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad are being challenged by way of present revision petition.

4. While challenging the impugned order and judgment passed by the Court below, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge has not properly considered the provisions of Section 11 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, wherein, all persons have been prohibited from use in relation to any trade mark of design in standard mark without licience. In the present case, at the time of search and seizure on 12.07.2007, the respondents were found not only manufacturing their product but also using ISI mark with the licence which was not renewed and which was under suspension with effect from 10.11.2006. The raiding party has found bottle packaged drinking water 20 litre Jars with the brand New Life having ISI Mark with IS 14543 CM/L 9321469 manufactured by New Age Aqua (P) Limited, Badkhal Faridabad. Along with the same, empty bottles of packaged drinking water 20 litre jars with ISI mark mentioning the licence number which was not in existence on that day were found.

5. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Orison J. Francis and Ann. reported as AIR 2009 Supreme Court 500 to argue that the complaint of manufacturing drugs without licence cannot be quashed on the ground that the application for grant of licence is pending as well as on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Lakhwant Singh v. Jasbir Singh and others reported as 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 545 to argue that a legitimate prosecution cannot be quashed by exercising the powers under Sections 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other