SHIBU MUHAMMADALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The precise grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this Crl.M.C. praying for a quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is that the investigation into the offence punishable under the Trade Marks Act has been conducted by an Investigating Officer not legally qualified and without complying with the proviso to Sec.115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. He further raises a contention that the provisions in the Indian Penal Code for which he has been indicted on the basis of the final report filed by the police are in no way applicable to the facts in the instant case. The petitioners, in these circumstances, pray that the proceedings against them may be quashed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the final report has already been filed and the petitioners have been directed to appear before the learned Magistrate. The petitioners are willing and prepared to raise these contentions before the learned Magistrate. But the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend that they will be put to unnecessary vexation and harassment if they were to physically appear before the learned Magistrate.

(3.) I am of opinion that the petitioners have serious questions to be urged before the learned Magistrate. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the learned Magistrate must exempt the petitioners from personal appearance and permit the learned counsel for the petitioners to represent them and advance arguments for discharge under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. After hearing such arguments, only if the learned Magistrate feels that charge deserves to be framed, need the personal presence of the petitioners be insisted.