SAFIQUE AHMED AND ANR. Vs. SIRAJ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the Court below dated 26 -7 -1971, by which the Petitioners have been summoned to stand their trial for offences under Section 482/109 Indian Penal Code and under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) ON a complaint filed before the learned S.D.M. at Bhadrak, cognizance of offence under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act and under Section 482 Indian Penal Code was taken by S.D.M. on 7 -7 -1970 after examining the complainant and one witness produced by him. After taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences the S.D.M. ordered on 10 -7 -1970 the officer in -charge, Bhadrak Police Station to inquire into the matter under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure and to submit his report. On receiving the inquiry report the S.D.M. on 13 -8 -1970 issued summons against one accused, who in not a Petitioner in this revision, for offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act. After the appearance of the said accused in his Court he, on 10 -11 -1970, transferred the case to the Court below for disposal according to law. The Court below examined two witnesses, and on 26 -7 -1971 passed the impugned order which is as follows:

(3.) IT is well settled that once cognizance is taken by the proper Court and the case is transferred to another magistrate then the transferee magistrate is in full seisin of the case, and he can issue process against new persons also whom he, on the evidence on record, finds concerned in the offence. This is so because cognizance is taken of the offence and not of individual offenders. The whole case must be taken to have been transferred, so that the entire case, in all its aspects, against the accused on record and/or against any other persons found concerned in the case, can properly be dealt with in accordance with law. On the above considerations the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in issuing process against the Petitioner requiring their attendance in Court to stand their trial for the offences mentioned above. So I do not find anything wrong in the impugned order.