STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. LALIT AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been brought under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) etc.

(2.) It is submitted that the charge sheet was filed against respondent No.1 and 2 before the trial Court for prosecution in offences under Section 420, 465, 468, 473, 475, 485, 486 of the IPC and for other offences under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The trial Court has framed the charges on 29-04-2014 against the Respondent No.1 and 2 for trial in offences under Section 103 and 108 of the Trade Marks Act and under Section 420 and 485 of the IPC. The order of framing charges was challenged before the Court of 9 th Additional Sessions Judge Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 223/2014 which was decided on 07-08-2015 in which the charges under Section 420, 485 of the IPC were set aside. This order of the revisional Court is illegal, arbitrary and erroneous. In fact, it were only the charge under Sections 420 and 485 of the IPC were sustainable, whereas, the charges under Section 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act were not sustainable, because there had been no compliance of the Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act by the respondent concerned. It is submitted that subsequent to this order of revisional Court the trial against respondent No.1 and 2 cannot be said to be proper trial because the respondents 1 and 2 have been exonerated from the offences which they have committed. It is submitted that this illegality is going to cause huge damage to the petitioner as there are cases pending before the Bombay High Court against the private respondents praying for claim for damages against the illegal act of the private respondents.

(3.) On behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is submitted that the petitioner had remedy available under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. which he has not availed. On this point reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agrawal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 and Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India and others, (2011) 14 SCC 337. The petitioner has also suppressed that the remedy was available to him. Referring to the order passed by the trial Court, revisional Court and also the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the private respondents in the year 2014, it is submitted that the cause of action was available to the petitioner for filing a writ petition in the year 2014-2015, besides this, this writ petition has been brought after inordinate delay of almost five years. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs. Jaswant Singh and another, (2006) 11 SCC 464 and State of Haryana Vs. Ram Mehar and others, (2016) 8 SCC 762. The delay and latches in seeking remedy in time cannot be excused. It is submitted that the private respondents have also faced trial for about five years and in case this petition is allowed, then there shall be a denovo trial. The trial against the private respondents is almost going to complete, therefore, the petition be dismissed at the motion stage.