Allahabad High Court
Murari Lal Agrawal vs Ram Kumar Mittal on 23 July, 2010
Author: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Bench: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2768 of 2010 Petitioner :- Murari Lal Agrawal Respondent :- Ram Kumar Mittal Petitioner Counsel :- S. Shekhar,V.K. Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 16.6.10 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras whereby an application for discharge moved by the revisionist was rejected in case no.834 of 2003.
It appears from the record that in the case of infringement of Trade Marks Act charge sheet was submitted by the police under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC. The cognizance was also taken under these Sections. When the case came at the stage of charge, an application was moved by the accused saying that on the facts mentioned in the FIR at the most infraction of Section 102 and 103 of the Trade Marks Act can be said to have been done and the accused cannot be tried for any offence under the Indian Penal Code what to say of Section 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC as the provisions of the Special Act shall supersede the general law embodied in the IPC. That application was rejected just by saying that the aforementioned offences of the IPC were made out.
Heard Mr. S. Shekhar, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.
Both the parties agree to get this revision finally decided as there is no need to hear O.P. No.1.
It has been argued by Mr. Shekhar that once there was Special Act regarding the alleged contravention of Trade Marks Act, then, the provisions of Indian Penal Code would not come into play. His second contention is that the trial court disposed of the matter in summary way as it did not say even a single word as to on what material Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC are made out if the accused are liable to be tried under these Sections.
I have gone through the order and I do subscribe to the above argument of Mr. Shekhar and in the circumstances of the case, find it a case fit for reconsideration by the court below.
Accordingly, this revision is allowed. Order dated 16.6.10 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide it afresh by specifically holding as to whether the accused can be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC inspite of the Special law being in force regarding the infringement of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act and secondly, if the court finds that the accused are liable to be tried under the IPC, then, it shall make clear discussion as to what was the evidence to constitute all or any of the offences mentioned above.
Order Date :- 23.7.2010 T. Sinha