State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lalit Agrawal

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