ANIL MITTAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIL Mittal, a partner or M/s. Khushi Ram Bihari Lal, Delhi has come up in this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the orders dated 22-8-1999, issued under Section 93 and 94; Cr.P.C. by Sh. G. R. Banyal, Judical Magistrate I Class, Batala and also for the release of the goods, belonging to the petitioner-firm which were seized at Kandla Port.

(2.) THE petitioner pleaded that he was a partner of M/s Khushi Ram Bihari Lal, 5290, Lahori Gate, Delhi-6. The petitioner-firm was established in the year 1978 and since then it has been engaged in the business of Basmati Rice and its export outside India. The firm is the proprietor of the trade mark 'Taj Mehal' in relation to Basmati Rice on account of its adoption and user since the year 1978. It is one the biggest established exporter of Basmati Rice. Its trade mark 'Taj Mehal' has become distinctive and is associated with the rice export by the petitioner firm on account of its long, continuous extensive and exclusive user. On account of fine quality maintained by the firm this brand of rice is in high demand and it has built up a valuable trade under the said name, both in India and abroad. The petitioner firm has also given the figures in rupees with respect to the export of rice made from 1980 to 1989. Firm respondent 3 was fully aware about this use and reputation, of the petitioner firm's trade-mark and wanted to cash upon the popularity of this trade mark. With this end in view, respondent 3 firm tried to pass on some of their goods under the trade-mark 'Taj Mehal' in Delhi market. Having acquired information about this fact, the petitioner firm filed a civil suit under Section 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Act for a permanent injunction and rendition of accounts against firm respondent 3 on 19-8-1989 in the Delhi High Court which was still pending. Respondent 3 through misre presentation, obtained an order from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Batala on 22-8-1989 and SHO Police Station City, Batala respondent 2 made a seizure of the goods vide Annexure P2 on the basis of that order. No seizure, however, could be made under Section 94, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance without examining the complaint and by means of the impugned order, he had issued an omnibus order for search of the same which was beyond the scope of Sections 93 and 94. Cr.P.C.

(3.) SH . H. L. Sabal learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, urges that under Section 93 only a search and inspection could be carried out and no goods could be seized. Section 93, Cr.P.C. runs As under :-