SAFDAR HUSSAIN Vs. S K ABDUL RAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are related criminal revision proceedings involving the same question of law. In all of them, the concerned revision petitioners were respective accused in prosecutions under S. 78 (c) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 43 of 1958. I may here state, purely for the purpose of setting forth the background of the facts, that S. 78 (c) relates to the making, disposal or possession of any instrument for the purpose of falsification of a trade mark. The broad allegation was that, with respect to the Tajmahal trade mark beedies, the concerned revision petitioners were found in possession of counterfoil blocks and other articles which would bring them within the mischief of the offence defined in S. 78 (c ).

(2.) IT appears that, originally the police of Tiruchirapalli registered a case under ss. 420 and 120-B I. P. C. against the revision petitioners, and conducted investigation into that case. A charge sheet under those sections of the Penal Code was ultimately filed, and we are not now concerned with the subsequent facts of those prosecutions. During the course of that investigation, the police also found that the revision petitioners had committed an offence punishable under S. 78 (c) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. They made separate reports or complaints in respect of this non-cognisable offence, before the Addl. First Class Magistrate, tiruchirapalli. With regard to these prosecutors under S. 78 (c), the learned magistrate before whom they were pending discharged the accused (revision petitioners) under S. 251-A (2) Crl. P. C. purely on the ground that the police had no power to investigate into such a non-cognisable offence, and, hence, that the prosecution itself was bad in law.

(3.) THE matter came up in revision before the learned District Magistrate (J) of tiruchirapalli, and the learned Magistrate took the view that, even in respect of a non-cognisable offence, the police could properly file a charge sheet or report, which would then be treated as a complaint, and dealt with according to law; this was on the authority of Public Prosecutor v. Munuswami Naidu, 1942 Mad WN Cri 56. The learned District Magistrate (J) also pointed out that a defect or illegality in the investigation, even if it be conceded had no direct bearing on the competence of the trial, or the procedure at trial. He set aside the order of discharge, and remitted the prosecutions for disposal according to law.