NARESH KUMAR AGARWAL S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BY CASTE AGARWAL, RESIDENT OF BEHIND GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 16.5.2015 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Aburoad, District Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court), whereby Criminal Revision No.30/2013 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

(2.) The aforesaid criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 25.7.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Criminal Regular Case No.609/2009, whereby charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 272, 273, 482, 483, 486, 487, 489 Penal Code and Sections 103 & 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 have been framed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as a matter of fact, there is no evidence available on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of crime for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 IPC. It is also contended that the court below has grossly erred in framing charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 272 read with Sec. 273 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the petitioners have committed any offences punishable under Sections 482, 483, 486, 487 and 489 IPC. It is contended that the Investigating Agency has not collected any evidence to suggest that the petitioners had counterfeited the property mark used by another. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that they were carrying tins of ghee of Nova company, however, the Investigating Agency has not conducted any investigation from the Nova company that the seized ghee from the petitioners was not of Nova company. It is also contended that though the charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 103 read with Sec. 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, but the investigation was conducted by the Officer, who was not competent to conduct the same for the offences punishable under Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is also contended that the trial court as well as the revisional court have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and have illegally passed the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus prayed that this criminal misc. petition may be allowed and the petitioners be discharged from the offences, for which, charges have been framed against them by the trial court vide order dated 25.7.2013. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and argued that the samples were taken out from the ghee recovered from the petitioners and were sent for chemical examination and as per the report of the Public Health Laboratory, Jodhpur, six samples were not found to be of ghee and three samples do not conform the prescribed standards as laid down under PFA Rules, 1955. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that when the tins seized from the petitioners do not contain ghee, then, prima facie evidence is available on record to satisfy that the petitioners have committed the offences for which charges have been framed against them. Learned Public Prosecutor has therefore argued that there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.