VISHWA MITTER v. O. P. PODDAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 176

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: D.A. DESAI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN

Case summary

The learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted 'the revision petition on the narrow ground that the order issuing the process is not a speaking order and directej the learned Magistrate to consider the question of issuing process afresh, When the matter came back to the...

Judgment text

·VISHWA MITTER v. o: P. PODDAR AND OTHERS September 30, 1983 [D. A. DESAI AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ. ]- Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958-0jfences under ss. 78 Qnd 79- Jndian Penal Code-Offence under s. 420-Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Sub-ss. (I) _and (2) of s. 4 r~ad with s. 190-Court cannot decline td take cogni· zance of complaint on. the sole gtound that complainant was not competent to file the complaint. The appellant, in his capacity as a dealer. of beedies and as the consti~ tuted attorney of the firm_ manufa~turing a particular brand of beedies, filed a con1plaint alleging comrnissio~ of offences by the respondents under ss. 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and s. 420, I. P. C. The Magistrate, after a preliminary inquiry, directed issue of process to the respon· .. I dents but the s_an1e was quashed in revision by· the High Court on a technical ground and the Magistrate was directed to consider the question of issue of process afresh.

The Magistrate re-heard the matter and dismissed the com- . plaint on the ground that the appellant was not competent to file the coinplaint against the respondents as he was not the fegistered owner of the trade-mark in question. The ·appellant approached this Court after the revision petition filed "by hi1n was dismissed in limine by the High Court.. Allowing the appeal, ... HELD : A~yone can set the criminal ·law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cogniz:iince tinders. 190 of the Co~e of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and unless any statutory provision prescribes esai, J. ) . 1$3 ground that he had no cause of action nor sufficient subsisting interest to file the complaint.

M/s Mangalore Ganesh Beedies Works, a partnership firm is the registered owner of trade marks, falsification and infringment of which is complained by the present complainant, who is not only a dealer in these beedies manufactured and sold by the registered owner of the trade marks, but he is also · the constituted attorney of the . owners of the registered trade mark. To say that the owner of the registered trade mark can alone file the complaint is contrary to the provisions of the statute and commonsense and reasdn. Therefore, the order of the learned , Magistrate dismissing the complaint at the threshold on the ground that the present appellant has ·no cause of action to file the complaint is utterly unsustainable and inust be quashed· and set aside. Surprisingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition of the complainant in /imine which order is equally unsustainable and must be set aside . .

This appeal is accordingly allowed and order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint and refusing to iss:. ie' process dated February 20, 1980 and the order of the High Court rejecting the revision petition· in limine dated November 4, 1980 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate to proceed further according to law in the light of the observations made in t_his judgment. H. L. C. \ Appeal allowed. . '