Full Judgment
1. This is a petition under S. 482/483 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 23rd April, 1993 passed by a learned Addl. C.M.M. Delhi and for direction to the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for issue of the search warrants.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner company has been using the trade mark Pronto in respect of its goods, parts and fittings of automobiles. It is alleged that the petitioner learnt the falsification of the trade mark Pronto and reproduction of its packaging's by certain unscrupulous manufacturers/sellers by use of identical and/or deceptively similar mark.
3. In view of the above facts, the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of learned Addl. Chief M.M., Delhi against Jeet Auto Pvt. Ltd. and unknown persons/firms/companies under S. 78/79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and S. 63 of the Copyright Act and S. 420I.P.C. Along with the complaint, the petitioner also moved an application under S. 93 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for direction for issue of General Search in order to ascertain the complete particulars of those persons/firms/companies who are indulging in the commission of illegal activities and/or identity of the property connected with the commission of offence. A learned A.C.M.M., Delhi vide his order dated 6th April, 1993 directed the complaint to be sent to the D.C.P. Crime for investigation under S. 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure and to send the report on 12th May, 1993. Thereafter the police submitted as interim report to the Court of A.C.M.M., Delhi on 19th April, 1993 and it was submitted in this report that :-
'The complaint and the papers annexed thereto have been examined. Prima facie it appears to be a case of violation of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. It is requested that a search warrant, general or specific as the court may deem fit, may kindly be issued to recover the spurious/falsified goods. A final report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. will be submitted to your Hon'ble Court on the date fixed i.e. 17-5-1993.'
4. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the A.C.M.M., Delhi praying therein that the search warrants be issued to recover spurious/falsified goods. The application was disposed of by the learned A.C.M.M. by his order dated 23rd April, 1993 and by this order the I.O. was directed to file final report on the date fixed and it was further ordered that appropriate orders on this application would be passed only after receipt of the final report.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 23-4-93 passed by the learned A.C.M.M., Delhi, the petitioner filed the present petition. Notice of this petition was issued to the State on 3rd May, 1993 for 10th May, 1993. On 10th May, 1993 the case was adjourned to 13th May and again on 13th May, 1993 it was adjourned to 18th May, 1993.
6. Mr. Tamta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even on 17th May, 1993 police has not submitted the final report and at the request of the I.O. concerned, the case has been adjourned to 5th July, 1993. He, thereforee, submitted that the learned A.C.M.M. should be directed to pass an order for issue of search warrants particularly when the police in its interim report had prayed to the Court of learned A.C.M.M., Delhi to issue search warrants. He further submitted that the petitioner-company will suffer an irreparable loss in case the relief is not granted by this Court as the case is now fixed before learned A.C.M.M. on 5-7-93. In support of his submissions the learned counsel relied on a Judgment of Gujarat High Court reported in the case of Sevantilal S. Shah v. State of Gujarat, : AIR1969 Guj14 .
7. Mr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submitted that the interim report has been given by the I.O. without making any investigation as this fact is evident from the report itself. He, thereforee, contended that once the learned A.C.M.M. had directed the police to investigate the matter under S. 256 Crl. Procedure Code, relief cannot be granted to the petitioner till the report based on some investigation is submitted by the Investigating Officer.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. From the interim report dated 18th April, 1993 which has been reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that this report was submitted by the I.O. without investigating into the matter. This report appears to be based on the opinion of the I.O. On 17th May, 1993 the final report has not been filed and the case had to be adjourned by the learned A.C.M.M. at the request of the police. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is likely to suffer great loss in case no action is taken till July, 1993, has some force.
9. In view of the above discussion, I direct the learned A.C.M.M. to enquire into the case himself for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, in case the requisite report is not received from the police within a week from the date of this order. With this order, the petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the learned A.C.M.M., Delhi for compliance. The parties are directed to appear before the learned A.C.M.M. on 28th May, 1993.
10. Order accordingly.