BABLU NANDA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed against the order dated 09.01.2014, passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, in Sessions Trial No.12/13. framing the charges against the applicant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 469, 471, 485, 486, 487 and 488 of IPC and Section 63 of Copyrights Act, 1957.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 24.04.2012, the complainant lodged an FIR against the applicant along with other co -accused persons that they sold the goods marked with a counterfeit property. It is further alleged that the co -accused was dealing with sale of engine/gear oil of branded companies like Servo Super, Hero Honda and M -2 and Castrol India. In this manner, the applicant has affixed and impressed upon the same and packaged other receptacle in which such goods are contained by making a false mark upon the receptacle containing goods. In this manner, the applicant has committed forgery with the oil companies of reputed brands. After due completion of investigation, the applicant and co - accused persons were charge -sheeted and after committal proceeding, by the impugned order the aforesaid charges have been framed against the applicant, hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court below has completely overlooked as to the role played by the applicant for the commission of the said offences. It is submitted that he is not concerned with the aforesaid act not he was employed by the aforesaid oil companies even then the applicant has been shown as one of the co - accused. It is also pointed out that according to the statements of witnesses, it is the co -accused who committed the aforesaid offence and not the applicant. It is further pointed out that the impugned order framing charge against the applicant is patently unwarranted, unsustainable and deserves to be quashed.