SYED KALEEM Vs. MYSORE LAKSHMI BEEDI WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both counsel. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for setting aside the order dated 6-12-1991 passed by the III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore, in C.C. No. 3680-1988, ordering framing of charge against the accused under Section 120-A, 120-B and 420 of IPC.

(2.) In the Court below, the petitioner is accused No. 2 and 1st respondent is the Complainant. Accused No. 1 Syed Khasim having died, is not made a party in this Revision Petition. The facts leading to the filing of this petition briefly stated are as follows : The complainant is said to be the proprietor of Mysore Lakshmi Beedi Works, Maddur, According to him, it is a well established firm enjoying immense reputation and good sales of his beedies. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also said to be traders in beedies at Mandya, carrying on business under different trade names. Having come to know that accused persons were selling their beedies by using the trade mark of the complainant i.e., 'Mysore Lakshmi Beedies' the complainant filed a private complaint against them in PCR No. 27/88 before the III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore City for committing of offences under Sections 420, 479 to 482, 486, 120-A and 120-B of IPC and also under Sections 76, 77, 78, 79 and 85 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958.

(3.) On receipt of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate referred the same to PSI, Nazarabad P. S. Mysore for investigation and report. The Police having investigated into the said complaint, filed a charge-sheet against A-1 and A-2 for the offences under Sections 420, 120-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Since accused No. 1 had died by then, the Court proceed against accused No. 2. Arguments were heard regarding charges. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 6-12-1991 ordered framing of charges against A-1 for offences under Ss. 420, 120-A and 120-B of IPC. According to the prosecution, accused No. 2 being a trader in beedies deceitfully used the Trade Mark of the complainant on his beedi bundles and accused No. 1 was selling the same in the market.