SEVANTILAL S SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision arises out of an order passed on August 3, 1965 by Mr. D. C. Mehta, Chief City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 649 of 1965, whereby the complaint came to be dismissed under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The Gujarat Industries Private Ltd. Bombay having its registered office at Bombay-4, of which the complainant Mr. Sevantilal Shah happens to be the Secretary, has been manufacturing fountain pens and its components of different varieties such as 'Ashok", "Service", "Champion" etc, and of those, the most popular fountain pens in demand, are "Champion" and "Ashok". The annual sale of the fountain pens extends over rupees thirty lakhs and out of the same, the sale of "Champion-555" fountain pens covers a sum of rupees six lakhs or so. The prices of "Champion" and "Ashok" fountain pens are about Rs. 18/- and Rs. 7-50 to Rs. 9/- per dozen respectively. The complainant has then alleged that the trade mark on the fountain-pens manufactured by his company are "Champion and "Ashok" and the same are registered in the office of the Trade and Merchandise Mark Registery at Bombay under Trade Mark Nos. 157902 and 157905 respectively. His company has, thus, acquired an exclusive right to use the said Trade Marks in the realm of fountain pen industry and the same has become well known to the trade and the public on account of its extensive use. He has then referred to special marks indicated on those fountain pens manufactured by his Company.

(3.) Since the learned Magistrate thought that the complaint was vague, he required the complainant to give the particulars of the place within the jurisdiction of his Court where the offences are being committed. The complainant thereupon gave a statement on July 1, 1965 to the effect that the counterfeit goods in question are being sold on the Gandhi Road, Relief Road etc. in the City of Ahmedabad. After hearing the learned Advocate for the applicant, the learned Magistrate found that since the complainant does not know the particulars about the accused persons as also the particulars about the date or dates or about the place or places of the commission of offences, no useful purpose would be served by making any inquiry in respect of the complaint and since in his view there were no sufficient reasons for proceeding in the matter, he dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Feeling dissatisfied with that order, the complainant has come in revision before this Court.