Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by the appellant, a dealer in beedies and constituted attorney of M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedies Works, alleging offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents. The complaint was initially accepted by the Magistrate but was later quashed by the High Court on a technical ground, leading to a re-evaluation by the Magistrate who dismissed the complaint, stating the appellant was not the registered owner of the trade mark. The appellant's revision petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate, and unless a statute prescribes specific qualifications for the complainant, the court cannot decline to take cognizance based solely on the complainant's competency. The court emphasized that the qualifications of the complainant are not relevant under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was noted that Section 89 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act specifies that only the Registrar can file complaints for certain offences, but does not impose such restrictions for offences under Sections 78 and 79. The court concluded that the appellant, having a subsisting interest as a dealer and attorney of the registered owner, was competent to file the complaint. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal of the complaint, and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for further proceedings according to law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of Offences - Competency of Complainant - No specific qualification required for filing a complaint - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 190 - The court held that anyone can initiate criminal proceedings by filing a complaint unless a statute prescribes specific qualifications for the complainant. The court emphasized that the qualifications of the complainant are irrelevant unless specified by law (Paras 181-182). B) Trade Marks - Filing of Complaints - Eligibility of Complainant - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, Sections 78, 79 - The court clarified that in the absence of specific qualifications, a complainant with a subsisting interest in the registered trade mark can file a complaint. The appellant, being a dealer and constituted attorney of the registered owner, had sufficient interest to file the complaint (Paras 182-183).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complainant must be the registered owner of a trade mark to file a complaint for infringement under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal of the complaint by the Magistrate, and remanded the matter for further proceedings according to law.
Law Points
- Cognizance of offences
- Competency of complainant
- Trade mark infringement
- Criminal Procedure Code provisions
