Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed against the accused persons.

11. The Ld. MM thereafter, passed impugned summoning order on 30.06.2014, operative extract is reproduced as under:-

"In the present case, the allegations against accused no 1 to 8 and 10 to 13 are in respect of forging certified copy of design no 180362 by attaching statement of novelty to it and using the same before Hon'ble High Court in CS (OS) no. 304/2004 and in the Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court Perusal of the documents placed on record fortify the averments of CRL.M.C. Nos. 3866/2014, 3946/2014, 3459/2015 to 3464/2015 complainant with respect to alleged forgery of certified copy of design no. 180362 Since the alleged forgery has been committed prior to filing of the document before the Court, therefore, the bar of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C would not be applicable in terms of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2005 SC 2119. The suit OS(OS) no. 304/2004 has been filed by accused no.7 and 8 through accused no.1 and 2 while accused no. 6 has filed his affidavit during the course of evidence. Accused no. 4 and 5 have filed their affidavits in SLPs filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accused no.3 is stated to have filed his affidavit before Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and thus, accused no.3 has not committed any act within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, from the record prima facie offences under Section 465/469/471/34 IPC are made out against accused no. 1, 2 and 4 to 8. So far as accused no. 10 to 13 are concerned, there is nothing on record except oral averments of the complainant to connect them with the alleged offences. There is no evidence to show their involvement in the forgery of design no. 180362 and filing the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or Hon'ble High Court. Thus, no case is made out against accused no. 10 to 13.

13. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocates for Colgate, India in CRL.M.C. 3946/2014 has submitted that in 1999-2000, Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Kolkata issued three Certificates of Registration of Design to Colgate-USA in respect of "toothbrush" designs bearing Registration No. 176343, 176345 and 180362. The alleged 'forgery' pertains to Statement of Novelty in Registration of Design No. 180362, original Certificate of which was issued to Colgate by the Controller having the Statement of Novelty on the reverse of the last sheet, true copy of same is at Page Nos. 6 to 10 of Written Arguments. Therefore, summoning order is bad in law and is a misuse of the judicial CRL.M.C. Nos. 3866/2014, 3946/2014, 3459/2015 to 3464/2015 process and once the original comes from the issuing authority i.e. primary evidence and no other document can be substituted qua against the original documents. Since, original has been placed on record alongwith Statement of Novelty on the back of last sheet, same cannot be disputed, if at all the opposite side can say anything in that case the original document can be called from the controller who hails the original document in his office. The certified copy which has been filed in some other court cannot ipso facto take place of the original document, therefore, plea cannot be raised that the forgery has been committed.

Learned Senior Counsels further submitted that while filing the case before the Delhi High Court, due to inadvertence, novelty certificate was not attached, though the same was attested and was a mistake of the Registry to overlook and not incorporated novelty certificate on the last page which the present petitioner has filed on page No.125 of the paper book. He further submitted that non-filing of the original document and administrative error at the controller's office for novelty statement being missing in the certified copy ipso facto does not constitute the offence of forgery or any kind of offence because the document in existence is not in dispute as the same is registered with the Controller of Patent & Design, Kolkata. If at all there is any forgery committed or if there is any other document so alleged Anchor could have filed the same before the concerned Court. The impugned order dated 30.06.2014 in is bad in law and same be set aside and quashed.

Thus, elements of Forgery are:

a. Making of a false document or part of it by the accused. b. Such making of document should be with intent  to cause damage or injury to public, or any person;  or to support any claim or title;
 or to cause any person to part with property;  or to cause any person to enter into express or implied contract;  or to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.