Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 79 penal code in Mohd. Hashim Masood vs State on 30 September, 1999Matching Fragments
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 10.7.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi directing separate trial of the petitioner in respect of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and under Sections 78/79 of the Trade Mark and Merch- andise Act.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision are that Sub Inspector Magan Singh, on the basis of some secret information, raided the godown of the Jullandhar Delhi Transport Company and recovered two cartoons containing certain gas regulators on 24.9.1991. On interrogation, Shri Ashok Kumar, an agent of the said transport company, disclosed that the seized regulators were booked by Pawan Kumar Gupta owner of M/s. Gupta Agencies. Thereupon a case under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and under Section 78/79 of the Trade Mark and Merchandise Act and Section 420-IPC was registered against the accused Pawan Kumar Gupta. During investigation of the case, house of the petitioner was also searched and 4,575 regulator plates along with certain articles were recovered therefrom. On completion of the investigation the petitioner along with the co-accused Pawan Kumar Gupta were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences.
1. Whether the Special Court can try this case?
2. If so, whether search, seizure and entry by the police is illegal and vitiate the proceedings?
4. On 10.7.1996, the learned Special Judge reviewed his earlier order of reference and directed the prosecuting agency to file a separate challan in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under Section 420 IPC, under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and under Sections 78/79 of the Trade Mark and Merchandise Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.
10. It needs to be highlighted that the Act does not provide for a special procedure to be followed by the special court for trial of cases punishable under the Act. As noticed earlier, by virtue of the provision of Section 12-AC of the Act, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been made applicable to the proceedings before the Special Judge to the extent they are not repugnant to or inconsistent with any provision of the Act. Sub-Section (1) of Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. Sub-Section (3) of Section 220 further provides that if the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial, for each of such offence. The expression "same transaction" occurring in Section 220(1) of the Code has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Howev- er, in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Ganeshwara Rao, 1983 SC 1850, it was held that the expression "same transaction" ought to be given the same meaning according to the normal rule of construction. It was also held that if several acts committed by a person show unity of purpose or design, that would be a strong circumstance to indicate that those acts form part of the same transaction. Thus the combined effect of Section 12-AC of the Act and Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the Special Court can try offences under Indian Penal Code along with the offences under Sections 3/7 of the Act, when conditions under Section 220(1) or (3) or (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are satisfied. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Special Judge directing the prosecuting agency to file a separate charge-sheet under Sections 420 IPC/Sections 78/79 of the Trade marks Act/Sections 63 & 64 of the Copyrights Act cannot be sustained in law.
11. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Special Judge is directed to proceed with the trial of the case for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commod- ities Act and also for offences punishable under Section 420 IPC/Sections 78/79 of the Trade Marks Act/Sections 63 & 64 of the Copy rights Act.