HABIB Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Order shall govern the disposal of MCRC No. 2135/90 arising out of Cr. Case No. 2165/86, MCRC No. 2136/90 arising out of Cr. Case No. 2167/86 and MCRC No. 2137/90 rising out of Cr. Case. No. 2166/86 pending in the Court of C. J. M. Ratlam as common question of law and facts are involved.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Habib, the supervisor of Kirloskar Oil Engine Proprietory Ltd. , Pune, found that the respondents in all the three cases, were having engine parts bearing false trade mark of this company in their possession and were selling the same representing that these parts were manufactured by the Company and thereby they were inducing the purchasers to purchase them. He himself purchased some parts from the respondents. Expert examined them and opined that the parts purchased and seized from the possession of the respondents were spurious and were not manufactured or supplied by the company, they bore false trade mark of the company. He lodged written complaint at P. S. Station Road, Ratlam where offence under Section 420, IPC was registered. During investigation some parts were seized and were sent for examination. After investigation, challans were filed against the respondents which were registered as Cr. Case Nos. 2165/86, 2167/86 and 2166/86. On or about 3-2-1988 the learned C. J. M. framed the charge under Section 420, IPC against the respondents.

(3.) THE complainant Co. engaged private lawyer Shri N. S. Purohit. On his application filed on 21-8-90, he was permitted by the learned C. J. M. vide his Order dated 5-10-90 to assist the public prosecutor under Section 302, Cr. P. C. Shri Purohit filed an application under Section 216, Cr. P. C. on 21-8-90 and prayed for framing charges for offence under Sections 78, 79 and 88 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for Short 'the Act' ). The respondents opposed the application. The learned C. J. M. rejected the application holding that his predecessors framed charge only under Section 420, I. P. C. against the respondents and impliedly discharged the respondents of the offences under the Act and now framing of charges under the Act would have the effect of reviewing the Order passed by his predecessors which was not permissible under Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant filed these petitions under Section 482 Cr. P. C.