LexDAU DAYAL versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS DAU DAYAL v. 639 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (VENKATARAMA AIYAR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and A. K. SARKAR, J J.) Criminal Trial-Counterfeiting trade mark-Limitation, of one year for proscwtion-Prosecu.tion, when commences-Whether on filing of complaint or on issite of process-Indian Merchandise Marks Act, I889 (4 of I889), s. IS. On April 26, l9S4· the appellant was arrested for offences under ss. 420, 482, 483, 48S and 486 Indian Penal Code and bidis alleged to bear counterfeit trade marks were seized from him. On this a complaint was filed on May 26, against the appellant that he was in possession of counterfeit bidis, wrappers and labels. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet on September 30, l9S4. and summons was ordered to the appellant on July 22, l9SS· The appellant raised a preliminary objection before the Magistrate that the proceedings were barred by s. IS of the Indian Merchandise Marks Act. He contended that the offence was discovered on April 26, I9S4. when he was arrested and the prosecution which commenced with the issue of process against him on July 22, l9S4. was beyond the period of one year provided by s. lS. Held, that the prosecution was not barred by s. IS as the prosecution commenced on the presentation of the complaint which was within one year of the discovery of the offence and not on the issuing of th<\ process. It is settled law that unless there is something to the contrary in the statute, when a private complaint is presented it is the date of presentation thereof that marks the commencement. of the prosecution. The period of limitation is intended to operate against the complainant and not against the Court. It will defeat the object of the Act and deprive traders of the protection of the law if it were held that the complaint should be thrown out unless process was issued within one year of the discovery of the offence. CRlllINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1958. Appeal from the judgment a.nd order dated Ma.y 14, 1958, of the Alla.ha.bad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1594 of 1956, a.rising out of the judgment a.nd order of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Kanpur in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 1956. 0. P. Lal, for the appellant. November a4. \ Dau Dayal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Venkataram:J Aiyar ]. 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. Gopi Nath Dikshit, for the respondent. 1958. November 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VEN~ATARAMA AIYAR, J.-The facts leading up to this appeal are these: On April 26, 1954, the appellant was arrested by the Sisamau Police for offences under ss. 420, 482, 483, 485 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he was in possession of 25 packets of 'Chand Chhap Biri', which were alleged to bear counterfeit trade marks. On May 26, 1954, one Harish Chandra Jain acting on behalf of Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das filed a complaint charging that the appellant was in possession of counterfeit bidis; wrap- pers and labels and praying that a case under the sections above mentioned be registered and investigat- ed. On that, the Magistrate passed the following order: "S. 0. Sisamau. Please investigate and register a case." After investigation, the police submitted their charge- sheet on September 30, 1954, and summons was order- ed to the appellant on July 22, 1955. On September 17, 1955, the appellant filed an application before the Magistrate wherein he raised a preliminary objection that the proceedings were barred by s. 15 of the Indian Merchandise Marks Act, 1889 (4 of 1889), hereinafter Teferred to as the Act. That section pro- vides: "No such prosecution as is mentioned in the last foregoing section shall be commenced after the expira- tion of three years next after the commission of the offence, or one year after the first discovery thereof by the prosecutor, whichever expiration first happens." The contention of the appellant was that the offence was discovered on April 26, 1954, when he was arrest- ed and the goods seized, and that, in consequence, the issue of process on July 22, 1955, was beyond the period of one year provided under s. 15 of the Act, and that the proceedings should therefore be quashed as barred by limitation. The Magistrate rejected this contention, and a Revision Petition preferred against this order to the Additional Sessions J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.