SANDWIP DEY Vs. SUNIL KUMAR SABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that the opposite party No.1 lodged a complaint alleging that he was manufacturing dry cell batteries with the trade mark of Tiger and having his own signatures on them, that he caught the present petitioner also producing similar batteries and that when challenged the present petitioner pounced upon him and his two companions abused him in filthy language and assaulted him by fist and blows and threatened to murder him if any legal action was taken against him. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. The present petitioner appeared before him and subsequently filed an application for discharge. Holding that cognizance had already been taken in this case, the learned Magistrate rejected his prayer for discharge. Hence, this revisional application.

(2.) It appears that summons has been issued by the court under sections 323/504/506/ 420/468 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Even from the seized battery it appears that the signature appearing on it was that of Sushil Kumar Saha, and not Sunil Kumar Saha which is the name of opposite party No.1. The signature has also not been made in the same way and it does not appear to be from the same hand. In that view of the matter section 468 has no application to the facts of the present case.