In view of the importance of the question raised, they granted leave to appeal to this Court under Art.
By their judgment dated May 13, 1958, the learned Judges held that the prosecution companymenced when the companyplaint was presented on May 26, 1954, and that as the discovery was on April 26, 1954, the proceedings were within time under s. 15 of the Act.
The Magistrate rejected this companytention, and a Revision Petition preferred against this order to the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, shared the same fate.
After investigation, the police submitted their chargesheet on September 30, 1954, and summons was ordered to the appellant on July 22, 1955.
On September 17, 1955, the appellant filed an application before the Magistrate wherein he raised a preliminary objection that the proceedings were barred by s. 15 of the Indian Merchandise Marks Act, 1889 4 of 1889 , hereinafter referred to as the Act.
1594 of 1956, and the same was heard along with other similar Revision Petitions by a Bench companysisting of James and Takru, JJ.
1594 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Kanpur in Criminal Revision No.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 14, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No.
On May 26, 1954, one Harish Chandra Jain acting on behalf of Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das filed a companyplaint charging that the appellant was in possession of companynterfeit bidis, wrappers and labels and praying that a case under the sections above mentioned be registered and investigated.
13 of 1956.
The appellant then filed a further Revision Petition to the High Court of Allahabad, being Criminal Revision No.
134 1 c of the Constitution, and that is how the matter companyes before us.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On that, the Magistrate passed the following order O. Sisamau.
118 of 1958.
November 24.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. The facts leading up to this appeal are these On April 26, 1954, the appellant was arrested by the Sisamau Police for offences under ss.
The companytention of the appellant was that the offence was discovered on April 26, 1954, when he was arrested and the goods seized, and that, in companysequence, the issue of process on July 22, 1955, was beyond the period of one year provided under s. 15 of the Act, and that the proceedings should therefore be quashed as barred by limitation.
Please investigate and register a case.
P. Lal, for the appellant.
Gopi Nath Dikshit, for the respondent.
That section provides No such prosecution as is mentioned in the last foregoing section shall be companymenced after the expiration of three years next after the companymission of the offence, or one year after the first discovery thereof by the prosecutor, whichever expiration first happens.
