State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lalit Agrawal

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 565 of 2020

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate Raipur (C.G.).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Lalit Agrawal, aged about 56 years, S/o Shyamsundar Agrawal,

2. Pankaj Agrawal, aged about 26 years, S/o Lalit Agrawal,

Both are R/o Udaya Society, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner/State : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

31/08/2023

Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General

appearing for the petitioner/State. Also heard Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior

Advocate assisted by Mr. Naveen Shukla, learned counsel appearing for

respondents.

2. The applicant/State has filed the instant revision challenging the order

dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Court of 9th Additional Session Judge,

Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 223/2014 discharging the Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:22126

2

respondents from the charges under Section 420, 485 of IPC whereas the

order dated 29.04.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Raipur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 31/2017 by which the respondents have

been discharged from the offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the

Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 420 and 485 of IPC.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 02.04.2013, a First

Information Report bearing No. 134/2013 was registered at Gudhiyari

Police Station, Raipur under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. against respondents -

Pankaj Agrawal and Lalit Agrawal owner of M/s Pankaj Ispat Ltd. Gogaon,

Raipur for the violations of Sections 420, 465, 468, 473, 475, 485 and 486

of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 103, 104 and 108 of the Trade

Marks Act, 1999, the said FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint

dated 02.04.2013 filed by one Shri Narendra Kumar Mehta, AGM

(Application Engineer) of M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd., Central

Marketing Organization, Mumbai. The complainant in his statement has

stated that M/s Pankaj Ispat Ltd., Gogaon, Raipur was producing SAIL

TMT 500D Bard in illegal manner and selling in the market. Thereafter a

team of officers of SAIL along with the local police made investigation in the

factory premises of ESIGNER M/s Pankaj Ispat Ltd., where a dye (roll)

was found near machine with six grooves with first, fifth and sixth grooves

embossing SAIL TMT 500D and second, third and fourth grooves

embossing ATLAS 500 ISI marks; apart from this, around 200 to 250 ton

SAIL Brand bar embossing SAIL TMT 500D was also found in mill

premises and inside mill, rolling mill (finishing stand) one more dye (roll)

having cut for making SAIL TMT 500D mark was found. It was further

stated that two trucks bearing nos. G3 06 2 7106 and CG JC 8002 were

also found loaded with SAIL TMT 500D embossed bar.

Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:22126

3

4. After completion of investigation, the Police of Police Station

Gudhiyari had filed a final report before the learned Trial Court. The learned

Trial Court vide order dated 29.04.2014 framed charges against the

accused persons for offences falling under Section 420 and 485 of the

Indian Penal Code and under Section 103 & 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999,

however the learned Trial Court discharged the accused persons from the

offences under Sections 465, 468. Thereafter, the accused persons

preferred a Criminal Revision, which was registered as Crimianl Revision

No. 223/2014 against the order dated 29.04.2014. The 9 th Additional

Sessions Judge, Raipur vide order dated 07.08.2015 had discharged the

accused persons for the offences only U/s 420 and 485 of IPC and framed

charges under Section 103 & 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 and remanded

the case to the Trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant/State submits that the owner of M/s

Pankaj Ispat Ltd., Pankaj Agrawal and Lalit Agrawal had misused the

registered mark/brand of the SAIL and caused loss to the SAIL. They

themselves produced the SAIL bar from substandard raw material (Pencil

Ingot) and caused cheating and gained benefit and ruined the reputation of

SAIL which was a Government of India Undertaking. Certain incriminating

materials were recovered and seized by Urla Police under Panchnama

dated 02.04.2013 and collected during the course of investigation of this

case by Chhattisgarh Police.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent/non-applicant

has pointed out that the present revision has been filed against the order

dated 07.08.2015 passed by the learned 9 th Additional Sessions Judge in

Criminal Revision No. 223/2014 by which the learned Judge has acquitted

the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 420, 485 of IPC.

Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:22126

4

She further submits that earlier the Steel Authority of India had filed a WPCr

No. 484 of 2019 against the order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the learned

lower Judicial Court and the same was allowed by the learned single Judge

on 22.10.2019. As such the revision as framed and filed is not maintainable

and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the

parties and perusing the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the learned

Single Judge in WPCR No.484 of 2019 wherein in paragraph 23 of its

judgment has held as under:

"the offences charged against the private respondents under

the provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999 are not identical with

the offence charged against them under the provisions of the

IPC. Further, the charge against the private respondents

under the IPC have more gravity compared to the offences

under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Hence, for these reasons it

is held that the order passed by the 9 th Additional Session

Judge in Revision No. 223/2014 is erroneous and against the

provisions of law which cannot be sustained, hence, this

order is quashed. The trial against the private respondents

shall continue for charges under Section 420 and 485 of the

IPC before the trial Court in accordance with law"

9. From perusal of the above said finding at this stage, nothing is

required to be adjudicated in the instant criminal revision, therefore, I do not

find any ground for interference in this revision.

Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:22126

5

10 Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

amita