HABIB Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of MCRC No. 2135/1990 arising out of Cr. Case No. 2165/1986, MCRC No. 2136/1990 arising out of Cri. Case No. 2167/1986 and MCRC No. 2137/1990 arising out of Cri. Case No. 2166/1986 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Ratlam as common questions of law and facts are involved.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Habib, the supervisor of Kirloskar Oil Engines Proprietary Ltd., Pune found that the respondents in all the three cases were having engine parts bearing false trade mark of his 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 Indian Penal Code 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 Cri. Case Nos. 2165/1986, 2167/1986 and 2166/1986. On or about 3.2.1988 the learned C.J.M. framed the charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code against the respondents.

(3.) SHRI Purohit, learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that the learned C.J.M. committed error in dismissing the application and not framing charges under the Act. Charge under Section 420 Indian Penal Code has been framed against the respondents stating that they induced the purchasers to purchase the parts of the engine representing them to be the manufacture of complainant company. Shri Purohit further submitted that the learned C.J.M. committed error in holding that non-framing of charges under the Act had the effect of discharge and he had no jurisdiction to review that order. He submitted that under Section 216, Criminal Procedure Code charge can be altered or added at any stage of the proceeding. The documents on record copies of which had already been supplied to the respondents clearly prove offences under the Act. Therefore, C.J.M. be directed to frame charges under Sections 78, 79 and 88 of the Act. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents as only three prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. On the other hand, Shri Jaisingh, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned order and submitted that after framing of the charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code no evidence was recorded or additional material was produced, therefore, additional charge under the Act cannot be framed. He submitted that framing of charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code and non-framing of the charge under the Act has the effect of implied discharge of the offence under the Act and, therefore, the learned C.J.M. was right in rejecting the application. He also submitted that now addition of charge at this belated stage would cause great prejudice to the respondents.