Madankumar Dharamchand Jain and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 1983 (1) Bom CR 416

FACTS OF THE CASE 

Kishanlal Rewatmal Agarwal is on 31st August, 1977 the complainant filed a complaint against four accused made therein for the commission of offences under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 120, 120-B, 465, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 483, 482 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigation disclosed that in addition to accused mentioned in the complaint, some other persons were also involved in the commission of offences charged in the complaint. On 5th April, 1978 the second respondent-original complainant filed fresh complaint charging the petitioners along with other accused, with the commission of offence under The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958,The Copyright Act, and also The Indian Penal Code.

The allegation is that the petitioners have infringed the trade mark of the respondent and are also guilty of using the goods produced by the respondent bearing the label of H.H.M. The petitioners have used similar marks on their items and thus they have infringed the goods.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the revisional Court is competent to examine the findings by lower court?

CONTENTONS OF THE PETITIONERS

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in this case it is undisputed that the first complaint remained undecided. It appears from the record that it seems to have been only filed in the Court. 

The counsel also referred to the judgment of learned Sessions Judge as observed in his judgment as “It appears that after the report was received either a fresh complaint was filed formally or the same complaint was assigned the number CC/190/S/77. The circumstances relating to that complaint are obscure. From Roznama it appears that on 2-11-1977 the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ordered the process to issue under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, section 63 of the Copyright Act and section 420 I.P.C. Process was not issued for the remaining offences”

The learned counsel also contended that the trial and all proceedings leading to the conviction and sentence of the petitioners are quite illegal. He narrated three illegalities in this case. First of all he contended that the complaint once has been dismissed by the Magistrate, he has no jurisdiction to recall the same. Secondly, he contended that the list of witnesses was not accompanied by the complaint and, therefore, process could not be issued. Thirdly he complained that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to drop the accused and the order of dropping the accused is unknown to procedure of the Criminal Procedure Code. Relying on these three circumstances, it was contended that the trial of the petitioners is vitiated and the conviction recorded against them is quite illegal.

CONTENTONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent raised a preliminary point saying that both these points have been discussed by the courts below and this Court will not be justified interfering with the findings in revision. The point of whether trial is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Code is not a point either as a fact or merely an appreciation of evidence. It is always open for the accused to show that the procedure adopted by the Court in the course of trial is prejudicial or is vitiated on the ground of non-compliance of certain provisions.

The learned Advocate for the respondent contended that the order of 21st June, 1978 dismissing the complaint must be treated as an order of discharge. If it is treated as an order of discharge, the Magistrate would recall the same in view of the ratio of this decision. It was contended that if such discretion is not vested in the Magistrate then it would lead to hardship and inconveniences.

The learned Advocates for the respondent-complainant contended that under section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, it was for the accused-petitioners to show that they have acted without intent to defraud and the burden lay on the petitioners-accused and not on the complainant. It was contended for the respondent-complainant that it is sufficient for the complainant to come to the Court and show that he is the owner of a particular Trade Mark and if he shows similarly of the articles which are infringed and if he brings material before the Court showing that certain other persons are marketing or dealing with that of similar trade mark, they are liable under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, it was also contended that it was not necessary to examine any customer in order to show that the mark actually by the petitioners is similar and is likely to confuse the customer

RATIO DECINDI 

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held if the findings are vitiated by illegalities and if they are not based on the evidence at all, the revisional Court is competent to examine the said findings.

JUDGMENT

The Bombay High Court interpreted and adjudicated that if the findings are vitiated by illegalities and if they are not based on the evidence at all, revisional Court is competent to examine the said findings; and came to the finding that the petitioners cannot be held guilty of the offences with which they were charged.

 The conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below was set aside and the petitioners were acquitted of the offences with which they were charged

CONCLUSION

When substantiation is vitiating, it means that it’s tainted or compromised in some way, which can have significant counter accusations for the accused in a legal proceeding. The effect of vitiating substantiation on the indicted depends on the specific circumstances and legal governance, but then are some general considerations. Vitiating substantiation may be supposed inadmissible in court. However, it could weaken their capability to prove the accused’s guilt, If the substantiation is pivotal to the executioner’s case and is barred. This could potentially affect charges being dropped or the indicated being acquitted. The addition of vitiating substantiation can violate the accused right to a fair trial. In numerous legal systems, there are rules and safeguards in place to ensure that substantiation presented in court is obtained fairly and without infringing upon the accused’s rights. However, it may be barred to cover the accused fair trial rights, if substantiation is set up to be vitiating. It’s important to note that the specific legal procedures and consequences of vitiating substantiation can vary depending on the governance and legal system in which the case is being tried. Consulting with a good legal professional familiar with the applicable laws is pivotal for accurate and specific advice in similar situations.

written by

Devranjan Singh Shekhawat, B.B.A LL.B (H) ,VI^th Semester ,III^rd Year, Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University  

Admin