CHINTAMANRAO BALAJIRAO Vs. DIGRAM BADLURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is by the complainant. Upon the report of the applicant, the Sagar Police put up a challan against the non-applicant Digram and three others, namely, Girilal, Kishorilal and Ramgopal for alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 483, 485 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code. At the initial stage of the trial, the Trial Magistrate discharged the accused Digram under Section 251-A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The present revision is directed against the order dated 8-7-1957, passed by Shri M. Bajpai, First Additional Sessions judge, Sagar, refusing to set aside the order of discharge passed by Shri L. B. B. Singh. Judge-Magistrate, Sagar on 11-2-1957 in Criminal Case No. 33 of 1956.

(2.) It was the prosecution case that the non-applicant and the 3 other accused entered into a conspiracy for cheating, and with that object in view, they were in possession of counterfeit trade mark of bidi labels identical with the registered trade mark of the applicant, bearing trade mark No. 22 and registered in the name of Brijlal Manilal. The applicant is a partner of the said firm of Brijlal Manilal.

(3.) The non-applicant had earlier been prosecuted and also convicted of an offence under Section 485 of the Indian Penal Code by the Magistrate First Class, Delhi. On account of that conviction, the trial Magistrate discharged the non-applicant on the ground that the accused could not be prosecuted for the same offence twice. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld that view of the trial Magistrate.