Anil Mittal vs State of Punjab and ors.

G. S. Chahal, J.

Anil Mittal, a partner or M/s. Khushi Ram Bihari Lal, Delhi has come up in this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the orders dated 2281999, issued u/ss 93 and 94; Cr.P.C. by Sh. G. R. Banyal, Judical Magistrate I Class, Batala and also for the release of the goods, belonging to the petitionerfirm which were seized at Kandla Port.

The petitioner pleaded that he was a partner of M/s Khushi Ram Bihari Lal, 5290, Lahori Gate, Delhi6. The petitionerfirm was established in the year 1978 and since then it has been engaged in the business of Basmati Rice and its export outside India. The firm is the proprietor of the trade mark `Taj Mehal'' in relation to Basmati Rice on account of its adoption and user since the year 1978. It is one the biggest established exporter of Basmati Rice. Its trade mark `Taj Mehal'' has become distinctive and is associated with the rice export by the petitioner firm on account of its long, continuous extensive and exclusive user. On account of fine quality maintained by the firm this brand of rice is in high demand and it has built up a valuable trade under the said name, both in India and abroad. The petitioner firm has also given the figures in rupees with respect to the export of rice made from 1980 to 1989. Firm respondent 3 was fully aware about this use and reputation, of the petitioner firm''s trademark and wanted to cash upon the popularity of this trade mark. With this end in view, respondent 3 firm tried to pass on some of their goods under the trademark `Taj Mehal'' in Delhi market. Having acquired information about this fact, the petitioner firm filed a civil suit u/ss 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Act for a permanent injunction and rendition of accounts against firm respondent 3 on 1981989 in the Delhi High Court which was still pending. Respondent 3 through misre presentation, obtained an order from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Batala on 228 1989 and SHO Police Station City, Batala respondent 2 made a seizure of the goods vide Annexure P2 on the basis of that order. No seizure, however, could be made u/s 94, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance without examining the complaint and by means of the impugned order, he had issued an omnibus order for search of the same which was beyond the scope of Sections 93 and 94. Cr.P.C.

A reference to order Annexure R5 shows that respondent 3 had filed a complaint u/ss 77, 78 and 79 of the aforesaid Act, claiming that his firm was the registered owner of the trade mark `Taj Mehal'' and doing the business of Basmati Rice. Rice. He had learnt that some businessmen and firms were manufacturing selling/distributing/exporting the Basmati rice in the Delhi New Delhi, Hyderabad name of `Taj Mehal'' at various places, Kandla Port/Bombay, Bombay Ports. These persons were not legally authorised to use that trade mark after recording the evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the trade mark `Taj Mehal'' had been exclusively allotted to the complainant. He thus issued a general search warrant u/s 93, Cr.P.C. returnable for 11111989. It was in consequence of those warrants that ASI Sadhu Ram of Police Station City, Batala seized and took into possession rice marked as `Taj Mehal''. This action was taken by him re u/s 94, Cr.P.C. and the total number of bags taken into possession was 337, weighing Fourteen tonnes and nine hundred sixty five kgs. These bags carried the trade mark of `Taj Mehal'' brand Basmati Rice in English.

Sh. H. L. Sabal learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, urges that u/s 93 only a search and inspection could be carried out and no goods could be seized. Section 93, Cr.P.C. runs As under :

When searchwarrant may be issued (1)(a) where any Court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons or order under section 91 or a requisition under subsection (1) of section 92 has been, or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing as required by such summons or requisition, or

(b) where such document or thing is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any person, or

(c) where the Court considers that the purpose of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code will be served by a general search or inspection.

It my issue a searchwarrant; and the person to whom such warrant is directed, may search or inspect in accordance therewith and the provisions hereinafter contained.

(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, specify in the warrant the particular place or part thereof to which only the search or inspection shall extend; and the person charged with the execution of such warrant shall then search or inspect only the place or part so specified.

(3) Nothing contained in this section shall authorise any Magistrate other than a District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate to grant a warrant to search for a document, parcel or other thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority."

Form No. 10 relates to warrant of search and runs as follows:

FORM NO. 10

To (name and designation of the police officer or other person or persons who is or are to execute the warrant).

Whereas information has been laid (or complaint has been made) before me of the commission (or suspected commission) of the offence of (mention the offence concisely), and it has been made to appear to me that the production of (specify the thing clearly) is essential to the inquiry now being made (or about to be made) into the said offence (or suspected offence):

This is to authorise and require you to search for the said (the thing specified) in the (describe the house or place or part thereof to which the search is to be confined), and, if found, to produce the same forthwith before this Court. returning this warrant, with an endorsement certifying what you have done under it, immediately upon its execution.

Dated, this day of 19

(Seal of the Court), (Signature)."

The learned counsel has urged that the Form cannot override the express provision of section 93. I am, however, of the view that the Form does not say anything more than the section itself provides. The underlying portion for providing emphasis clearly indicates that after search and inspection, the provisions of the Code following section 93 are to be followed. The officer to whom the warrant u/s 93 have been issued, is authorised to seize the goods and take them into possession. The nature of the search warrant issued u/s 93 and the question, whether the Magistrate, while issuing such warrant, has to record reasons came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana, ILR (1978) (2) Punjab and Haryana 305. It was held that obtaining a search warrant from the Magistrate is nothing more than a step in aid of the investigative powers of the police and more particularly with regard to the areas and jurisdictions beyond the police station where the case is registered. The search warrant undersection 93 of the Code obtained in the course of investigation of a cognizable offence and the subsequent searches and seizures made thereunder are such integral parts of the investigation of the case that they cannot be interfered with or quashed at the preliminary stage when the matter is not even before a court for trial. It was also held that a search warrant u/s 93, obtained during the course of the investigation of a cognizable offence which has been duly executed and returned has beta exhausted and by the very nature of things, the searches and seizures thereunder cannot be reversed. Therefore, a petition seeking the quashing of such searches and seizures is futile in nature and virtually infructuous. It was also held that section 93 of the Code merely requires the reasonable belief of the Court with regard to the requirements of that section. The Magistrate is not bound to record the reasons in detail. This authoritative pronouncement is a complete reply to all the arguments of the learned counsel. I find no merit in the criminal miscellaneous and the same is hereby dismissed.

Misc. dismissed.