MUHAMMAD AHMAD Vs. BEZWADA VENKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to revise the orders of the Sub-Magistrate of Rajahmundry in C. C. 1018 and 1019 of 1929, discharging certain accused against whom complaints had been lodged under Secs.482, and 486, I. P.C. Some prosecution witnesses admitted that the accused had been using the alleged false trade-mark for four or five years. Thereupon the Sub-Magistrate ordered discharge finding that under 3. 15, Act 4 of 1889, the prosecution was barred.

(2.) Section 486, I. P.C., runs: Whoever sells anything with a counterfeit trade-mark affixed shall unless he proves such and such...be punished.

(3.) Section 15, Act 4 of 1889, runs: No prosecution (for an offence against any of the sections of the Indian Penal Code which relate to trade) shall be commenced after the expiration of three years next after the commission of the offence, or one year after the discovery there of....