MADANKUMAR DHARAMCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision application is filed by original accused Nos. 5 and 6 challenging the appellate order, dated 7th September, 1981 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1979, by which the learned Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners for the offence under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. These convictions were recorded by the learned Magistrate on 26th March, 1979. The first petitioner was sentenced to suffer S.I. till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month for an offence punishable under section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. The first petitioner was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days for an offence punishable under section 63 of the Copyright Act. The second petitioner, who is original accused No. 6, was convicted for commission of offence under section 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default he was to suffer S.I. for one month.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 Kishanlal Rewatmal Agarwal is the original complainant in the present case. On 31st August, 1977 the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay which was numbered as Case No. 18/1&R/1977 charging four accused made therein for the commission of offences under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 120, 120-B, 465, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 483, 482 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code. The present petitioners were not involved as accused in the said complaint. Accused No. 4 in that complaint was named as Kamal Hosiery Industries, and other unknown persons. The complaint was referred for investigating by the learned Magistrate. After receipt of the report of the Investigation Officer, it was disclosed that not only there were four accused mentioned in the complaint, but some other persons including the present petitioners and also others were also involved in the commission of offences charged in the complaint.

(3.) When this report was received, it appears that the names of the petitioners were added to another complaint which is on record, which I will refer afterwards along with accused Nos. 7 and 8.