http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: VISHWA MITTER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: O. P. PODDAR AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/09/1983

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR    5            1984 SCR  (1) 176  1983 SCC  (4) 701

ACT:      Trade and  Merchandise Marks  Act, 1958-Offences  under ss. 78 and 79-Indian Penal Code-Offence under s. 420-Code of Criminal Procedure,  1973-Sub-ss. (1)  and (2)  of s. 4 read with s.  190-Court cannot  decline  to  take  cognizance  of complaint on  the  sole  ground  that  complainant  was  not competent to file the complaint.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant,  in his  capacity as a dealer of beedies and as  the constituted attorney of the firm manufacturing a particular brand  of beedies,  filed  a  complaint  alleging commission 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 respondents but the same 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 complaint on the ground that the appellant was not competent  to file the complaint against the respondents as he  was not  the registered  owner of  the trade-mark  in question. The  appellant approached  this  Court  after  the revision petition  filed by  him was  dismissed in limine by the High Court.      Allowing the appeal,      HELD: Anyone  can set  the criminal  law in  motion  by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled  to take  cognizance under s. 190 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure,  1973 and  unless any statutory provision   prescribes    any   special   qualification   or eligibility criteria for putting the criminal law in motion, no court  can decline  to take cognizance on the sole ground that  the   complainant  was   not  competent  to  file  the complaint. Section  190 of  the Code  clearly indicates that the qualification  of the complainant to file a complaint is not relevant. [181 H; 182 A-B]      (b) Section  4, Cr. P.C. provides for trial of offences under the  Penal Code  and other  laws. Sub-s.  (1) of  s. 4 deals with offences under the Penal Code. Sub-s. (2) of s. 4 provides that  all offences  under any  other law  shall  be investigated, inquired  into, tried and otherwise dealt with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

according  to  the  same  provisions,  but  subject  to  any enactment for  the time being in force regulating the manner or  place   of  investigating,  inquiring  into,  trying  or otherwise  dealing  with  such  offences.  From  a  combined reading of  s. 4(2)  with s.  190, it transpires that upon a complaint being filed by a person, setting-out 177 facts  therein   which  constitute  the  offence,  before  a Magistrate specified  in s.  190,  the  Magistrate  will  be competent to  take cognizance of the offence irrespective of the qualifications or eligibility of the complainant to file the complaint. [179 H; 180 A-B; H; 181 A]      (c) Section  89 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 provides  that no  court shall  take cognizance  of  an offence under  s. 81,  82 or  83 except  on a  complaint  in writing made  by the  Registrar or any officer authorised by him in  writing. This  provision manifests  the  legislative intention that  in respect  of the  three specified offences punishable under  ss. 81,  82 and 83, the Registrar alone is competent to  file the  complaint. This  would show  that in respect of  other  offences  under  the  Act  the  provision contained in  s. 190,  Cr. P.C. read with sub-s. (2) of s. 4 thereof would  permit anyone  to  file  the  complaint.  The indication to  the contrary as envisaged by sub-s. (2) of s. 4 is  to be  found in s. 89 of the Act and that section does not  prescribe   any  particular  eligibility  criterion  or qualification for  filing a  complaint for  contravention of ss. 78 and 79 of the Act. [182 E-G]      (d) Even  otherwise,  in  the  absence  of  a  specific qualification, if  the person  complaining has  a subsisting interest in  the protection of the registered trademark, his complaint cannot  be rejected  on the  ground that he had no cause of  action or  sufficient subsisting  interest to file the complaint. In the instant case the appellant who was the complainant  was   not  only   a  dealer   in  the   beedies manufactured and  sold by the registered owner of the trade- mark but also its constituted attorney. [182 H; 183 A-B]      (e) Even  with regard to offences under the Penal Code, ordinarily, anyone  can set  the criminal  law in motion but the various  provisions in  Chapter XIV, Cr. P.C. prescribes the qualification  of the complainant which would enable him or her  to file a complaint in respect of specified offences and no  court can take cognizance of such offence unless the complainant satisfies the eligibility criterion; but, in the absence of any such specification no court can throw-out the complaint or  decline to  take cognizance on the sole ground that  the   complainant  was   not  competent  to  file  the complaint.                                                    [182 C-D]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 516 of 1983.      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  4th November, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No. 652 of 1980.      V.M. Tarkunde, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Pinki Mishra for the Appellant.      Harbans Lal and N.D. Garg for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 178      DESAI, J.:  Appellant Shri  Vishwa Mitter,  a dealer in beedies and  cigarettes as  also the constituted attorney of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

M/s.  Mangalore   Ganesh  Beedies   Works,  Mysore  filed  a complaint in  the Court  of Sub  Divisional Magistrate,  Ist Class,  Pathankot   on  December   6,  1977  complaining  of commission of  offences by the four respondents impleaded as accused  under   Sections  78   and  79  of  the  Trade  and Merchandise Marks  Act, 1958  (’Act’ for short) and Sec. 420 IPC. It  was alleged in the complaint that the principals of the complainant  M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedies Works, Mysore are the  registered owners of four trade marks in respect of beedies manufactured  by them.  The name under which beedies manufactured by  the principals  of the complainant are sold in  the  market  is  ’Mangalore  Ganesh  Beedies’  having  a registered trade  mark in  the  wrapper  being  pink  colour wrapper containing the motif of Lord Ganesha and the numeral ’501’. One  additional registered  trade mark  used  by  the manufacturers of the beedies is the ’Ganesh Beedies’ wrapped in a  wrapper as  mentioned above and bearing a multy-colour seal label  containing the  numeral ’501’ at its centre. The owners of  the registered  trade  mark  came  to  know  that respondent No.  4-M/s Shri Ganesh Beedi Works, Chakradhapur, Bihar were  guilty of  infringing the  trade mark by using a wrapper and seal label identical with or deceptively similar to the  registered trade  mark and  the  principals  of  the complainant filed  a suit  complaining of  infringement  and passing off  against the  4th respondent. There was a prayer for perpetual  injunction in  the suit.  The suit ended in a decree in favour of the owners of the registered trade mark. Somewhere in August 1977, the complainant who is a dealer in the beedies  manufactured by  the owners  of the  registered trade mark  came to know that the 4th respondent was selling beedies of inferior quality after wrapping them in a wrapper and using  the trade mark deceptively similar to that of the registered trade mark. A complaint thereupon was filed which led  to   the  seizure  of  some  goods.  Subsequently,  the complainant came  to know  that the 4th respondent in league with the  2nd and  3rd respondents were storing for sale and selling beedies  of inferior  quality wrapped in deceptively similar wrapper  and were  thereby infringing the registered trade mark  despite the  injunction of  the  Court.  It  was alleged  that  respondents  Nos.  1  to  3  knowing  of  the registered trade  mark in  favour of  the principals  of the complainant were  storing for  sale and  selling beedies  of inferior quality  manufactured by  the  4th  respondent  and wrapped in wrappers falsifying the registered trade mark and thereby it  was alleged  that respondents committed offences under Sections  78 and  79 of  the Act  and Sec.  420 of the I.P.C. 179      On this  complaint  being  filed  after  a  preliminary enquiry, the  learned  Magistrate  directed  process  to  be issued to  the accused.  The accused moved revision petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh with a request to  quash the  proceedings. 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  directed  the  learned  Magistrate  to consider the  question of  issuing process  afresh. When the matter came back to the learned Magistrate, he after hearing the parties  held that  no case was made out for issuing the process and  proceeded to dismiss the complaint. The reasons which  impelled   the  learned   Magistrate  to   reach  the aforementioned conclusion may better be extracted in his own words:           "That  complainant   who  has  filed  the  present      complaint is not the Holder of the Trade Marks which is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    said  to   have  been   impugned  by  the  accused,  in      collaboration with  each other. He is only a sub-dealer      of M/s  Mangalore Ganesh  Beedies  Works,  Vinoba  Road      Mysore, and  there must be hundred and thousand dealers      of this firm, like him. It is only M/s Mangalore Ganesh      Beedies Works, who are holders of the Trade Mark and it      is only  they who  are competent  to file the complaint      against the  accused. The  complainant has  got no  any      cause of  action,  because  the  trade  mark  which  is      impugned by  the accused  does not  belong to  him, but      belongs to  M/s Ganesh Beedies Works, Mysore, Karnataka      State. As  no trade  mark of  the complainant  has been      violated by  the accused as he is only a sub-dealer and      not holding any trade mark. I find no reason absolutely      to issue  the  process  and  the  complaint  is  hereby      dismissed."      The complainant  moved the  High Court  of  Punjab  and Haryana in  Revision Petition  No. 652  of 1980,  which  was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave.      The reasons which appealed to the learned Magistrate to come to  the conclusion  that the  complaint  filed  by  the complainant  cannot   be  entertained   because  he  is  not registered owner of the trade mark is clearly erroneous      Sec. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for trial  of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. Sub- 180 Sec. (1)  of Sec.  4 deals  with offences  under the  Indian Penal Code.  Sub-sec.  (2)  of  Sec.  4  provides  that  all offences under  any other law (other than offences under the Indian Penal  Code) shall  be investigated,  inquired  into, tried  and  otherwise  dealt  with  according  to  the  same provisions, but  subject to any enactment for the time being in force  regulating the  manner or  place of investigating, inquiring  into,  trying  or  otherwise  dealing  with  such offences. Fasciculus  of sections included in Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code set out conditions requisite for initiation of  proceedings. Sec. 190 provides for cognizance of offences  by Magistrates  which inter  alia provides that subject to  the provisions  of Chapter XIV, an Magistrate of the first  class, and  any Magistrate  of the  second  class specially empowered  in this  behalf under  sub-section (2), may take  cognizance of  any offence-(a)  upon  receiving  a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;...Sec. 190 thus confers  power on  any Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence  upon  receiving  a  complaint  of  facts  which constitute such offence. It does not speak of any particular qualification  for   the  complainant.  Generally  speaking, anyone can  put the criminal law in motion unless there is a specific provision  to the  contrary. This  is  specifically indicated by  the provision  of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 4 which provides that  all  offences  under  any  other  law-meaning thereby law  other  than  the  Indian  Penal  Code-shall  be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according  to   the  provisions  in  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure, but  subject to  any enactment for the time being in force  regulating the  manner or  place of investigating, inquiring  into,  trying  or  otherwise  dealing  with  such offences. It  would follow  as a  necessary  corollary  that unless in  any statute  other  than  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure which  prescribes an  offence  and  simultaneously specifies the  manner or  place of  investigating, inquiring into, trying  or otherwise  dealing with  such offences, the provisions of  the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply in respect of  such offences  and they  shall be  investigated,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

inquired into,  tried and  otherwise dealt with according to the provisions  of the  Code of Criminal Procedure. One such provision in  the Code  of Criminal  Procedure in  Sec.  190 which empowers any Magistrate of the class specified therein to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts  which constitutes  such offence.  If after  taking cognizance of  an offence  it is permissible under Sec. 192, such Magistrate  may make  over the case to other Magistrate therein specified.  Therefore, from  a combined  reading  of Sec. 4(2) with Sec. 190 of the Code of Criminal 181 Procedure, it  transpires that  upon a  complaint filed by a person  setting-out  facts  therein  which  constitutes  the offence before  a  Magistrate  specified  in  Sec.  190  the Magistrate will  be competent  to  take  cognizance  of  the offence irrespective of the qualifications or eligibility of the complainant  to file the complaint. It must, however, be conceded that  where a  provision to the contrary is made in any  statute,   which  may  indicate  the  qualification  or eligibility of  a complainant  to file  the  complaint,  the Magistrate before  taking cognizance  is  entitled  and  has power to  inquire  whether  the  complainant  satisfies  the eligibility criteria.  One illustration  would indicate what can be  a provision  to the contrary as contemplated by sub- sec. (2)  of Sec.  4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec. 195(1) provides  that no  Court shall take cognizance of any offence set  out therein  except on the complaint in writing of the  public servant  concerned or  of some  other  public servant  to   whom  he   is  administratively   subordinate. Similarly sub-sec.  (2) of  Sec. 195  provides that no Court shall take  cognizance of  any  of  the  offences  specified therein except on the complaint in writing to that Court, or to some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Sec. 198 provides  that no  Court shall  take  cognizance  of  an offence punishable  under Chapter  XX of  the  Indian  Penal Code, except  upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the  offence. Sec.  199 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal  Code, except  upon a  complaint made  by  some person aggrieved  by the  offence. Sec. 20 of the Prevention of Food  Adulteration Act, 1954 provides that no prosecution for an  offence under  the Act,  not being  an offence under Section 14  or Section  14-A, shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government  or a  person authorised in this behalf, by general or  special order,  by the Central Government or the State Government.  Section 621  of the  Companies Act,  1956 provides that  no Court shall take cognizance of any offence against the Act (other than an offence with respect to which proceedings are  instituted under  section  545),  which  is alleged to have been committed by any company or any officer thereof,  except   on  the   complaint  in  writing  of  the Registrar, or  of a  shareholder of  the company,  or  of  a person authorised  by the Central Government in that behalf. It is not necessary to multiply the illustration.      It is  thus crystal  clear  that  anyone  can  set  the criminal law  in motion  by  filing  a  complaint  of  facts constituting an offence before 182 a Magistrate  entitled to take cognizance under Sec. 190 and unless  any   statutory  provision  prescribes  any  special qualification  or   eligibility  criteria  for  putting  the criminal law  in  motion,  no  Court  can  decline  to  take cognizance on  the sole  ground that the complainant was not competent to  file the  complaint. Sec.  190 of  the Code of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

Criminal Procedure  clearly indicates that the qualification of the  complainant to file a complaint is not relevant. But where any  special statute prescribes offences and makes any special provision  for taking  cognizance of  such  offences under the statute, the complainant requesting the Magistrate to  take   cognizance  of   the  offence  must  satisfy  the eligibility criterion  prescribed by  the statute. Even with regard to  offences under the Indian Penal Code, ordinarily, anyone can  set the  criminal law  in motion but the various provisions in Chapter XIV prescribe the qualification of the complainant  which  would  enable  him  or  her  to  file  a complaint in  respect of specified offences and no Court can take cognizance  of  such  offence  unless  the  complainant satisfies the  eligibility criterion,  but in the absence of any such specification, no Court can throw-out the complaint or decline  to take  the cognizance  on the sole ground that the complainant was not competent to file the complaint.      Section 89 of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of  an offence  under Section  81, Section  82 or Section 83  except on  a complaint  in writing  made by  the Registrar or  any officer authorised by him in writing. This provision  manifests   the  legislative  intention  that  in respect of  the three  specified offences  punishable  under Sections 81,  82 and 83, the Registrar alone is competent to file the  complaint. This  would simultaneously show that in respect of  other offences  under  the  Act,  the  provision contained in Sec. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with sub-sec.  (2) of Sec. 4 would permit anyone to file the complaint. The  indication to  the contrary  as envisaged by sub-sec. 2 of Sec. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be found  in Sec. 89 and that section does not prescribe any particular eligibility criterion or qualification for filing a complaint  for contravention  of Sections 78 and 79 of the Act. Therefore,  the learned  Magistrate  was  in  error  in rejecting  the   complaint  on  the  sole  ground  that  the complainant was not entitled to file the complaint.      Even  otherwise   in  the   absence   of   a   specific qualification, if  the person  complaining has  a subsisting interest in the protection of the registered trade mark, his complaint cannot be rejected on the 183 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  infringement  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 reason. 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   must  be   quashed   and   set   aside. Surprisingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition of  the   complainant  in  limine  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 issue 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

in the light of the observations made in this judgment. H.L.C.                                      Appeal allowed. 184