{"id":177934,"date":"1971-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971"},"modified":"2016-11-13T20:30:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-13T15:00:53","slug":"state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\/S. Panna Lal … on 24 November, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\/S. Panna Lal … on 24 November, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 232, \t\t 1972 SCR (2) 572<\/div>\n
Author: P J Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM NATH, PARTNER M\/S.\tPANNA LAL DURGA PRASAD, KANPUR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/11\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nBENCH:\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nPALEKAR, D.G.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR  232\t\t  1972 SCR  (2) 572\n 1972 SCC  (1) 130\n\n\nACT:\nTrade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958), ss. 28, 78, 79\nand 89--Offecnes under ss. 78 and 79-Prosecution if could be\ninitiated  by  Inspector of  trade  marks-Discontinuance  of\ntrade mark--Use by another--If civil matter.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Inspector\tof  trade  marks  wrote\t a  letter  to\t the\nMagistrate and requested him to take necessary action  under\nlaw  against  the respondents on the  allegations  that\t the\nrespondents were producing coins and pieces of gold and were\napplying to them a trade mark which was deceptively  similar\nto  the\t registered trade mark of a bank, and which  was  in\nforce\twhen  the  respondents\tproduced  the  coins.\t The\nMagistrate directed the police to register a case under\t the\nTrade  and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and investigate\t it.\nOn receipt of the police report the Magistrate followed\t the\nprocedure  prescribed by s. 251A of the\t Criminal  Procedure\nCode,  and framed charges under ss. 78 and 79 of the Act  on\nbeing  satisfied that there was a prima facie  case.   After\none   of   the\tprosecution  witnesses\twas   examined\t the\nrespondents raised the question that the evidence  disclosed\nthat the bank had discontinued the use of the trade mark and\na question of abandonment which could be more suitably dealt\nwith by the civil court, had arisen.\nThe High Court on reference by the Sessions Court held\tthat\n:  (1)\tthe  prosecution  could\t not  be  initiated  by\t the\nInspector  of Trade Marks in view of s. 28 of the  Act,\t (2)\nwhether\t the question of the abandonment of the\t trade\tmark\namounted  to  an express or implied consent for use  by\t the\nrespondent  was a matter for the civil court and not  for  a\ncriminal  prosecution and (3) the prosecution  for  offenses\nunder  ss.  78\tand 79 was not valid because  the  Bank\t was\ndeclared  to be a foreign bank by the Reserve Bank of  India\nin 1960 and hence had no rights as a citizen of India.\nAllowing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD  :\t (1)  Merely  because s.  89(1)\t of  the  Trade\t and\nMerchandise  Marks  Act\t refers\t to  the  manner  of  taking\ncognizance in respect of certain offenses specified therein,\nit  does  not  preclude the  cognizance\t of  other  offenses\nspecified  in Chapter X of the Trade and  Merchandise  Marks\nAct  from being taken under the procedure prescribed by\t the\nCriminal  Procedure  Code.   The  offenses  with  which\t the\nrespondents were charged are punishable with imprisonment of\ntwo  years  and hence, being non-cognizable,  the  procedure\nfollowed,  in  the  present  case,  by\tthe  Magistrate,  is\nunexceptionable.  Section 28 of the Act which is in  Chapter\nIV relating to the effect of registration has no hearing  on\nthe question [578 C-H; 579 A-D]\n(2)  An offence under ss. 78 and 79 relates to a trade\tmark\nwhether\t it is registered or unregistered.  The\t application\nof  a  trade mark signifies a particular type of  goods\t and\ninvolves  deception.   Therefore,  the fact  that  the\tBank\ndiscontinued the use of the trade mark would not absolve the\nrespondents,  from  criminal liability.\t Even if  the  trade\nmark  was  abandoned  by the Bank it could  only  furnish  a\nground for a person to make\n573\nan  application\t under s. 46 of the  Trade  and\t Merchandise\nMarks  Act to have the trade mark removed from the  register\nof  trade marks, but it does not entitle anyone to  use\t the\ntrade mark. [577 A; 578 A-C]\n(3)  The question whether the Bank, being a foreign bank, is\nnot  a\tcitizen\t and  had no Tight in  the  trade  mark\t is,\ntherefore,  irrelevant and does not affect the\tvalidity  of\nthe proceedings against the accused. [577 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 41  of
\n1969,
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated September 6,  1967,
\nof the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Reference No. 265 of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
O. P. Rana, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Nur–ud-din Ahmed and P. N. Bhardwaj, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nP.Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This Appeal is by Certificate against
\nthe order of the High Court of Allahabad quashing the charge
\nframed by the Additional City Magistrate, Kanpur against the
\naccused Respondent for offenses under Sections 78 and 79  of
\nthe Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 43 of 1958\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Act’).  Respondent 1 to Respondent 4 are
\nthe  partners  of the firm M\/s.\t Pannalal  Durga  Prasad  of
\nNayaganj,  Kanpur which is a firm of bullion  merchants\t who
\nhave also been minting gold coins with a trade mark said  to
\nbe similar to the one which is the registered trade mark  of
\nM\/s.  Habib Bank Ltd., Bombay and which was in force on\t the
\nday when the alleged offence is said to have been committed.
\nOn 24th October 1962 the Inspector of Trade Marks on  behalf
\nof  the\t Director  of  Industries  wrote  a  letter  to\t the
\nAdditional  City Magistrate I, Kanpur that M\/s.\t Habib\tBank
\nLtd.,  Bombay which is one of the foremost refiners of\tgold
\nhas  been  producing  coins and pieces of  gold\t of  various
\nshapes\tand  sizes  for\t sale commonly\tknown  as   under  a
\ndistinct trade mark, the most striking feature of which\t has
\nalways\tbeen  a device of a lion holding a  sword  with\t his
\nforearm\t against  the  back ground of a\t rising\t sun.\tThis
\ndevice\tof lion is with the word ‘Habib Bank Ltd.’ above  it
\nand ‘Shuddha Sonu’ below it in Gujarati script with a dotted
\ncircle along the border on the face of the device of a\tcoin
\nand  a wreath ‘along the border on the other face  with\t the
\nwords  ‘Habib  Bank Ltd., contained in the  upper  half\t and
\n‘Pure  Gold’  in the lower half of the space  within  it  in
\nEnglish\t script with the description of weight and  quality.
\nThis  trade mark it was stated had acquired  distinctiveness
\nin respect of old coins and pieces produced by
\n574<\/span>
\nthem  on account of long and extensive use, that the  people
\nin  that part of the country particularly the people in\t the
\nrural  areas  have  always had a great fancy  for  the\tgold
\npieces\tand  coins of Habib Bank Ltd., on account  of  their
\nfineness  for  use  in preparing ornaments as  also  as\t the
\nsafest\tinvestment  of\ttheir  savings\tby  purchasing\t and
\nretaining these coins and pieces, and consequently such gold
\ncoins continued to be highly popular among the people in the
\nrural\tareas  as  well\t in  the  bullion  trade,  and\t are
\ndistinguished  on  account of the above noted  features\t and
\ntrade mark.\n<\/p>\n
It was alleged that M\/s.  Pannalal Durga Prasad, Kanpur\t are
\nproducing similar coins and pieces of gold and to them\tthey
\napply a trade mark which is deceptively similar to the above
\nregistered  trade  mark of M\/s.\t Habib Bank Ltd.,  the\tonly
\ndifference  between the two was that instead of\t Habib\tBank
\nLtd.,  in Gujarati script on one face and English script  on
\nthe  other face, the words ‘Habib quality’ are used and\t the
\nwords  ‘pure  gold’  in English script is  preceded  by\t the
\nletters\t P & D. It was averred that this trade mark  adopted
\nby M\/s.\t Panna Lal Durga Prasad is bound to deceive not only
\nthe buyers who are ignorant of English and Gujarati scripts,
\nbut even unwary purchasers from urban areas are likely to be
\ndeceived.   Though  by a registered letter  the\t Trade\tMark
\noffice had drawn the attention of the firm regarding the use
\nof  the mark by them and had requested them to indicate\t the
\nperiod for which they had been using it and whether the mark
\nhad been registered as a trade mark in their name, they\t had
\nnot  chosen to reply even though they received\tthe  letter.
\nIt  was\t further stated that a goldsmith  Shri\tPyarelal  in
\nNayaganj  market  is also falsely  applying  the  registered
\ntrade  mark  of\t M\/s.\tHabib Bank  Ltd.,  and\thas  in\t his
\npossession  dies  and other instruments for being  used\t for
\nfalsifying the trade mark.\n<\/p>\n
On  these allegations the Magistrate was requested  to\ttake
\nnecessary  action under the law against those  mentioned  in
\nthe  letter in respect of offenses under Sections 78 and  79
\nof the Act, by directing the Police to investigate the case.
\nOn receipt of this letter on the same day namely  24-10-1962
\nthe  Magistrate directed the Police to register a  case\t and
\ninvestigate.  The Sub Inspector of Police thereupon prepared
\na search Memo in as much as there was no sufficient time  to
\nget  the  warrant of search issued and also because  of\t the
\npossibility of the removal of goods and effected a search of
\nthe  premises.\t The Inspector went to the Silver  and\tGold
\nfactory\t of Panna Lal Durga Prasad and found that  Ram\tNath
\nSon  of\t Durga\tPrasad one of the  Respondents\twas  present
\nthere.\tHe made an inspection of the factory in his presence
\nand seized the dies for the manufacture of coins and gold
\n575<\/span>
\nbars found near the place of goldsmith Munna son of Lakhpat.
\nThe  Inspector\tfurther\t in the presence  of  the  witnesses
\ncaused\ta gold coin of one tola and another of half tola  to
\nbe manufactured by way of specimen out of the gold bar found
\nat  the place.\tThese coins were duly seized and  preserved,
\nafter obtaining the seal of Ram Nath.  It is unnecessary  to
\ngive, all the, details of the recoveries because that is not
\nrelevant for the purposes of this case.\t A police report was
\naccordingly made to the Magistrate who adopted the procedure
\nunder Sec. 251-A by examining each of the Respondents  after
\nwhich  he  framed  charges  against  them.   Thereafter\t  he
\nexamined  Wadia,  P.W. 1, a Senior Attorney Clerk  of  Habib
\nBank  Ltd.,  Bombay  on 1-5-64.\t  On  29-5-64  before  other
\nwitnesses  could  be  examined\tthe  Respondents  filed\t  an
\napplication stating that from the evidence of Wadia, P.W. 1,
\nHabib  Bank  had stopped dealing in gold and  does  not\t now
\nmanufacture gold coins, that it had also destroyed the\tdies
\nAnd  since  1954 this trade mark of Habib  Bank\t has  become
\nineffective and is thrown open to the public, as such it was
\nprayed that the case be stayed and the complainant  directed
\nto  seek  remedy  ill the civil court so  that\tthe  accused
\npersons\t may not be unnecessarily harassed.  The  Magistrate
\nrejected  this\tcontention  because  it\t appeared  from\t the
\nevidence  that the registration of the trade mark  of  Habib
\nBank  was current upto 1967 and that since  the\t Respondents
\nhave  been charged under Sections 78 and 79 of’ the Act\t the
\ncontention  of\tthe accused that in view of Sec. 46  of\t the
\nsaid  Act  where  a trade mark is abandoned  for  more\tthan
\nyears,\tthe Respondents cannot be said to have committed  an
\noffence,  is  not tenable.  By a well considered  order\t the
\nMagistrate  dismissed  the  application\t and  directed\t the
\nproduction of the entire evidence on the next date,  without
\nfail.  Against this a revision was filed before the Sessions
\nJudge of Kanpur.  The Sessions Judge made a reference to the
\nHigh  Court recommending the quashing of the charge  on\t the
\nground\tthat  “The principle of abandonment is\tgiven  legal
\nrecognition  in Sec. 46 Trade & Merchandise Marks Act  which
\nprovides  that a registered trade mark may be taken off\t the
\nregister  if it was not used for continuous period  of\tfive
\nyears or longer.” The High Court held that on the  statement
\nof  Wadia it is clearly established that Habib\tBank-  Ltd.,
\nhad  stopped dealing in gold and coins since 1954 and  there
\ncould  therefore  be no question of  the  Respondents  corn-
\nmitting any offence under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act.  On
\nthis  reference the High Court by its Judgment dated  6-9-67
\nthought\t that Sec. 46 had no application inasmuch  as,\tthat
\nSection\t provided  that\t unless the  registration  had\tbeen
\nrectified the propriety rights of the Bank could not be said
\nto have ended only because the trade mark had not been\tused
\nfor  a period of more than 5 years.  It observed that  there
\nmay be cases where the non-\n<\/p>\n
576<\/span><\/p>\n
user  of the trade mark may have been occasioned on  account
\nof  special reasons and such non-user was explainable;\tthat
\nclause\t(iii) of Sec. 47 makes it clear that it is  open  to
\nthe  owner to contest the application for  rectification  of
\nthe  register, by the plea, that the non-user of  the  trade
\nmark  was due to special circumstances in the trade and\t not
\ndue  to any intention on his part to abandon or not  to\t use
\nthe  trade  mark  in  relation to the  goods  to  which\t the
\napplication   relates.\t  Accordingly  the   learned   Judge
\nexpressed the view that the proceedings are not vitiated  on
\nthe ground that the trade mark in question has ceased +to be
\nthe  property  of M\/s.\tHabib Bank Ltd.\t It appears  that  a
\ncontention was urged before the High Court that since  Habib
\nBank  Ltd.,  was declared to be a foreign Bank in  the\tyear
\n1960 by the Reserve Bank of India as it had become a citizen
\nof Pakistan, it was not a citizen under the Constitution  of
\nIndia  and  therefore  had no  proprietory  rights  in\tthis
\nCountry.   The High Court said that this submission  of\t the
\nRespondent’s Advocate had some force as the question  raised
\nwas   a\t  substantial\tquestion  of   law   involving\t the
\ninterpretation\tof  the Articles of the\t Constitution,\tthat
\ncould properly be decided in a civil action rather than by a
\nMagistrate  in\ta  Criminal  case.   For  this\t proposition
\nreliance  was  placed on a decision of that Court  in  Karan
\nSingh v. Mohan Lal(1), which following a Full Bench decision
\nof the Calcutta High Court in Ashutosh Das v. Keshav Chandra
\nGhosh(2)  held\tthat  a\t controversy  between-\tthe  parties
\nrelating  to  a complicated question of abandonment  of\t the
\nuser  and relating to the express or implied consent of\t the
\nregistered  holder  of the trade mark  are  questions  which
\nshould be decided in a civil court rather than by a Criminal
\nCourt.\t It was also held by the High Court that  Since\t the
\ncomplaint  in  the particular case had not been\t made  by  a
\nProprietor of the trade mark, the prosecution of the accused
\non  the\t complaint  of\tthe  Trade  Marks  Inspector  and  a
\nsubsequent  investigation  by the Police  were\tnot  tenable
\nunder  Sections\t 78  and  79  of the  Act  in  view  of\t the
\nprovisions  of Sec. 28 of that Act.  An objection  seems  to
\nhave,  been  taken before the learned Judge  that  the\tHigh
\nCourt  was  not competent to quash the\tproceedings  pending
\nbefore the Trial Magistrate in that case because no revision
\npetition had been filed against the order of the  Magistrate
\nby  which the charge was framed against him but it was\tonly
\nafter one of the witnesses had been examined that a Revision
\nhad  been  filed  which is not competent.   The\t High  Court
\nrejected  this\tcontention  and held that it  had  power  to
\nexercise revisional powers under Sec. 561-A and\t accordingly
\naccepted  the  reference  made by  the\tSessions  Judge\t and
\nquashed\t the  proceedings against the accused  for  offences
\nunder Sections 78 & 79 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
(1) 1964 ALJ 653.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A.T.R. 1936 Cal. 488.\n<\/p>\n
577<\/span><\/p>\n
It appears to us that the High Court had misdirected  itself
\nin considering that the submissions which found favour\twith
\nit,  were relevant for the purpose of deciding\twhether\t the
\nproceedings  for prosecution for offences under Sections  78
\nand  79 of the Act were not valid either because, the  Habib
\nBank  Ltd.,  being a foreign Bank was not a citizen  and  as
\nsuch  had  no  rights  or that\tthe  prosecution  cannot  be
\ninitiated  by  the  Inspector of Trade Marks  or  that\tthe,
\nquestion  of  the abandonment of trade mark amounted  to  an
\nexpress or implied consent was a matter for civil court\t and
\ncannot be made the subject of a criminal prosecution.
\nSections  78 and 79 are contained in Chapter X of  the\tAct.
\nSection 78 provides that any person who falsifies any  trade
\nmark,  falsely\tapplies to goods any trade mark;  or  makes,
\ndisposes  of,  or  has in his  possession  any\tdie,  block,
\nmachine, plate or other\t instrument   for  the\tpurpose\t  of
\nfalsifying,  or of being used for falsifying a\ttrade  mark,
\napplies any false trade description to\tgoods etc. etc. etc.
\nshall  unless  he  proves that he acted\t without  intent  to
\ndefraud, be punishable with imprisonment for a term    which
\nmay  extend to two years, or with fine, or with both,  while
\nSection 79 makes a person liable to similar punishment if he
\nsells  goods or exposes them falsely or for having  them  in
\nhis  possession\t for  sale or for any purpose  of  trade  or
\nmanufacture  any  goods or things to which any\tfalse  trade
\ndescription is applied. Trade mark has been defined in\tSec.
\n2 (1) (v)  to mean\n<\/p>\n
\t       (i)  in\trelation to Chapter  X\t(other\tthan
\n\t      Section 81), a registered trade mark or a mark
\n\t      used  in relation to goods for the purpose  of
\n\t      indicating  or so as to indicate a  connection
\n\t      in  the course of trade between the goods\t and
\n\t      some person having the right as proprietor  to
\n\t      use the mark; and\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(ii) in relation to the other provisions  of
\n\t      this Act,a mark used or proposed to be used in
\n\t      relation\t to   goods  for  the\tpurpose\t  of
\n\t      indicating  or so as to indicate a  connection
\n\t      in  the course of trade between the goods\t and
\n\t      some  person  having  the\t right,\t either\t  as
\n\t      proprietor  or as registered user, to use\t the
\n\t      mark whether with or without any indication of
\n\t      the  identity  of that person and\t includes  a
\n\t      certification  trade mark registered  as\tsuch
\n\t      under the provisions of Chapter VIII.”\n<\/p>\n
It is apparent from this definition that for the purposes of
\nChapter\t X of the Act which deals with criminal offenses,  a
\ntrade  mark  includes a registered as well  as\tunregistered
\ntrade  mark.  An offence under Sections 78 or  79  therefore
\nrelate\tto  a  trade  mark  whether  it\t is  registered\t  or
\nunregistered.  The contention that the
\n578<\/span>
\nregistered  trade  mark\t of the Habib Bank  Ltd.,  has\tbeen
\nabandoned since the said Bank- had discontinued its use from
\n1954   will  not  absolve  the\trespondents  from   Criminal
\nliability  because  even  if it was abandoned  it  can\tonly
\nfurnish\t a ground for a person to make an application  under
\nsec.  46 to have the trade mark removed from the  registers.
\nIt does not however entitle him to use a trade mark  whether
\nit is current or has been removed from the register, or\t has
\nbeen abandoned or even if it has never been initially regis-
\ntered  but has acquired the currency of a trade\t mark.\t The
\noffenses under Sections 78 and 79 consists in the  deception
\nand  application of a trade mark which is in use  and  which
\nsignifies  a particular type of goods containing that  mark.
\nThere is, therefore, no validity in the contention that\t the
\ninfringement  of the trade mark of Habib Bank  Ltd.,  merely
\ngives  rise  to\t a  civil action, in  respect  of  which  no
\nprosecution  will lie.\tThe provisions contained in  Chapter
\nIV  in\twhich is contained Sec. 28 relate to the  effect  of
\nregistration and have no bearing on the question before us.
\nIt  was neatly urged that the Trade Marks Inspector  had  no
\nright  to  make\t a complaint under Sections 78\tand  79\t and
\ntherefore the prosecution was invalid.\tThis contention also
\nin  our\t view is misconceived.\tA perusal of sub-s.  (2)  of
\nSec.  89  would\t show that no Court inferior to\t that  of  a
\nSessions  Judge, Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of\t the
\n1st Class shall try an offence under this Act; while  sub-s.
\n(1)  provides  that  no Court shall take  cognizance  of  an
\noffence\t under\tSec.  81,  Sec. 82  or\tSec.  83  except  on
\ncomplaint  in writing made by the Registrar or\tany  officer
\nauthorised by him in writing.  Merely because sub-s. (1)  of
\nSec. 89 refers to manner of taking cognizance in respect  of
\noffence\t under\tthe Section specified therein, it  does\t not
\npreclude cognizance of other offenses specified in Chapter X
\nfrom  being  taken  under the procedure\t prescribed  by\t the
\nCriminal Procedure Code.  It is apparent that offenses under
\nSections  78 and 79 are punishable with imprisonment of\t two
\nyears or with three years if they fall under the  respective
\nprovisos to the said Sections.\tIn cases where an offence is
\npunishable  with  imprisonment of one year and\tupwards\t but
\nless than 3 years, under Chapter XXIII of Schedule 11 it  is
\nnon-cognizable\tand  is a summons case, triable\t as  already
\nstated\tunder Sec. 89(2) by the Sessions  Judge,  Presidency
\nMagistrate or a Magistrate of the 1st Class.  In such  cases
\nunder  Sec.  155  of the Criminal  Procedure  Code  when  an
\ninformation  is given to an officer incharge of\t the  Police
\nStation\t of the commission of a non-cognizable\toffence,  he
\nhas  to enter the substance of the information in a book  to
\nbe  kept  for the purpose and refer ‘the  informant  to\t the
\nMagistrate but he cannot under sub-s. (2) investigate such a
\ncase  without the order of a Magistrate.  On receiving\tsuch
\nan order any Police officer may exercise the same powers  in
\nrespect of the investigation (except the power to arrest
\n579<\/span>
\nwithout\t warrant) as an Officer in charge of police  station
\nmay  exercise in a cognizable case.  On receipt of a  report
\nfrom  the,  Police  in\tcompliance  with  such\torders,\t the
\nMagistrate may it the report discloses the commission of  an
\noffence\t try the accused by the procedure  prescribed  under
\nSec.  251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.  This being\t the
\nlegal  position in this case the Magistrate in our view\t has
\nfollowed the correct procedure.\t The information in  respect
\nof the commission of an offence under Sections 78 and 79  of
\nthe  Act  was brought to the notice of the Magistrate  by  a
\nletter\tfrom  the  Trade  Marks\t Inspector,  The  Magistrate
\ndirected  the police to register a case and investigate\t it.
\nThe  Police accordingly complied with it and made  a  report
\nthereon.  On receipt of the report the Magistrate  satisfied
\nhimself\t that  the respondents had received  the,  documents
\nreferred  to  in Sec. 173.  After a consideration  of  those
\ndocuments  he  examined\t the accused  and  after  giving  an
\nopportunity to both the prosecution and the accused framed a
\ncharge on being satisfied that there was a prima facie case.
\nThe  procedure followed therefore is  unexceptionable.\t The
\nquestion  whether the Habib Bank Ltd., being a foreign\tBank
\nis  not a citizen and whether it has any right in the  trade
\nmark  is  therefore  irrelevant\t and  does  not\t affect\t the
\nvalidity of the proceedings or of the charges framed against
\nthe accused.  We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the
\nJudgment  of  the High Court and direct\t the  Magistrate  to
\nproceed with the case in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t       Appeal allowed.\n580<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\/S. Panna Lal … on 24 November, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 232, 1972 SCR (2) 572 Author: P J Reddy Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM NATH, PARTNER M\/S. PANNA LAL DURGA PRASAD, KANPUR DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/11\/1971 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\/S. Panna Lal ... on 24 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\/S. Panna Lal ... on 24 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-13T15:00:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\\\/S. Panna Lal … on 24 November, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-13T15:00:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971\"},\"wordCount\":3153,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\\\/S. Panna Lal ... on 24 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-13T15:00:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\\\/S. Panna Lal … on 24 November, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\/S. Panna Lal ... on 24 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\/S. Panna Lal ... on 24 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-13T15:00:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\/S. Panna Lal … on 24 November, 1971","datePublished":"1971-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-13T15:00:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971"},"wordCount":3153,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971","name":"State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\/S. Panna Lal ... on 24 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-13T15:00:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ram-nath-partner-ms-panna-lal-on-24-november-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M\/S. Panna Lal … on 24 November, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=177934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}