ANKIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No. 1, Pali Camp Jaitaran, District Pali in revision upholding the order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bar in Criminal Case NO.665A/2004 framing charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 482, 483 and 486 IPC and Sections 63 and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant misc. petition are that the SHO, PS Sendra, District Pali acting on a prior information, is said to have searched a white bolero vehicle No. RJ 36 G 0277 on 20.6.2004 and on the search being taken, two persons were found sitting in the vehicle namely, Bheem Singh driver and Ankit. From the vehicle, six cartons containing various packaging of ghee were recovered. Each of the cartons was having the label of Government of India and the goods were said to be of Mangla Trading but was bearing no logo or address. The two persons named above on enquiry being made disclosed that they were taking the goods for one Naval Kishore. On the basis of recovery proceedings, FIR No. 122/2004 was registered and investigation commenced. On the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for the offences mentioned above and the learned Magistrate proceeded to frame the charges against the petitioners vide impugned order dated 10.9.2009. The order framing charges was challenged in revision which too has been rejected vide order dated 11.1.2011. It is in these circumstances that the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the charges as well as all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioners in this case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this case, the charges which have been framed against petitioners are absolutely groundless. It is also submitted that neither there is any complaint of anybody holding a particular trademark or copyright nor there is any witness who has stated that he was cheated by the petitioners by the usage of the allegedly fraudulent or counterfeit property mark. Thus, it is argued that the order framing charges is absolutely an abuse of process of court and the revisional court's order affirming the same is also illegal. It is also submitted that there is no material on the record of the case by way of a chemical examiner's report for showing that the ghee recovered was adulterated. Hence, it is prayed that the orders impugned deserves to be quashed.