DESH RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these five revisions were prosecuted separately for applying false trade marks, trade descriptions and for selling goods to which a false trade mark or false trade description had been applied, that is to say. for offences punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. They pleaded that their prosecutions were barred by limitation under Section 92 of that Act. The learned Additional City Magistrate, Lucknow, who held the trials accepted that plea and consequently ordered their acquittal. The State filed Criminal Appeals Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 of 1967 against those orders of acquittal. The said five appeals were allowed by this Court and the cases were remanded for decision according to law. While doing so. this Court made the following observation :

(2.) AFTER the receipt of the five cases on remand, the successor Additional City Magistrate passed an order On December 26. 1969 for the cases to be listed on January 8, 1970 for the recording of the statements of the petitioners in their separate cases and for the framing of the charges. The cases did not come up for disposal on January 8 but instead on January 20, on which later date, the Public Prosecutor made an application for the decision of the cases on the basis of the evidence already on the record and on the basis of such other evidencs, as the prosecution might like to adduce. This application was opposed by the petitioners. The learned Magistrate heard arguments and ordered on February 19. 1970 that there was no occasion for recording the statements of the petitioners afresh or for framing of fresh charges and fixed February 24 for arguments.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed five revisions before the Sessions Judge. Lucknow, praying for making references to this Court for quashing that order. However, the Sessions Judge dismissed these revisions, giving rise to these revisions in this Court.