{"id":218599,"date":"1983-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983"},"modified":"2018-08-05T08:13:53","modified_gmt":"2018-08-05T02:43:53","slug":"vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983","title":{"rendered":"Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR,     5\t\t  1984 SCR  (1) 176<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D Desai<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Desai, D.A.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nVISHWA MITTER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nO. P. PODDAR AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/09\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nSEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR    5\t\t  1984 SCR  (1) 176\n 1983 SCC  (4) 701\n\n\nACT:\n     Trade and\tMerchandise Marks  Act, 1958-Offences  under\nss. 78 and 79-Indian Penal Code-Offence under s. 420-Code of\nCriminal Procedure,  1973-Sub-ss. (1)  and (2)\tof s. 4 read\nwith s.\t 190-Court cannot  decline  to\ttake  cognizance  of\ncomplaint on  the  sole\t ground\t that  complainant  was\t not\ncompetent to file the complaint.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant,  in his  capacity as a dealer of beedies\nand as\tthe constituted attorney of the firm manufacturing a\nparticular brand  of beedies,  filed  a\t complaint  alleging\ncommission of  offences by  the respondents under ss. 78 and\n79 of  the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and s. 420,\nI.P.C. The Magistrate, after a preliminary inquiry, directed\nissue of process to the respondents but the same was quashed\nin revision  by the High Court on a technical ground and the\nMagistrate was directed to consider the question of issue of\nprocess afresh.\t The  Magistrate  re-heard  the\t matter\t and\ndismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant was\nnot competent  to file the complaint against the respondents\nas he  was not\tthe registered\towner of  the trade-mark  in\nquestion. The  appellant approached  this  Court  after\t the\nrevision petition  filed by  him was  dismissed in limine by\nthe High Court.\n     Allowing the appeal,\n     HELD: Anyone  can set  the criminal  law in  motion  by\nfiling a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a\nMagistrate entitled  to take  cognizance under s. 190 of the\nCode of\t Criminal Procedure,  1973 and\tunless any statutory\nprovision   prescribes\t  any\tspecial\t  qualification\t  or\neligibility criteria for putting the criminal law in motion,\nno court  can decline  to take cognizance on the sole ground\nthat  the   complainant\t was   not  competent  to  file\t the\ncomplaint. Section  190 of  the Code  clearly indicates that\nthe qualification  of the complainant to file a complaint is\nnot relevant. [181 H; 182 A-B]\n     (b) Section  4, Cr. P.C. provides for trial of offences\nunder the  Penal Code  and other  laws. Sub-s.\t(1) of\ts. 4\ndeals with offences under the Penal Code. Sub-s. (2) of s. 4\nprovides that  all offences  under any\tother law  shall  be\ninvestigated, inquired\tinto, tried and otherwise dealt with\naccording  to  the  same  provisions,  but  subject  to\t any\nenactment for  the time being in force regulating the manner\nor  place   of\tinvestigating,\tinquiring  into,  trying  or\notherwise  dealing  with  such\toffences.  From\t a  combined\nreading of  s. 4(2)  with s.  190, it transpires that upon a\ncomplaint being filed by a person, setting-out\n177\nfacts  therein\t which\tconstitute  the\t offence,  before  a\nMagistrate specified  in s.  190,  the\tMagistrate  will  be\ncompetent to  take cognizance of the offence irrespective of\nthe qualifications or eligibility of the complainant to file\nthe complaint. [179 H; 180 A-B; H; 181 A]\n     (c) Section  89 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,\n1958 provides  that no\tcourt shall  take cognizance  of  an\noffence under  s. 81,  82 or  83 except\t on a  complaint  in\nwriting made  by the  Registrar or any officer authorised by\nhim in\twriting. This  provision manifests  the\t legislative\nintention that\tin respect  of the  three specified offences\npunishable under  ss. 81,  82 and 83, the Registrar alone is\ncompetent to  file the\tcomplaint. This\t would show  that in\nrespect of  other  offences  under  the\t Act  the  provision\ncontained in  s. 190,  Cr. P.C. read with sub-s. (2) of s. 4\nthereof would  permit anyone  to  file\tthe  complaint.\t The\nindication to  the contrary as envisaged by sub-s. (2) of s.\n4 is  to be  found in s. 89 of the Act and that section does\nnot  prescribe\t any  particular  eligibility  criterion  or\nqualification for  filing a  complaint for  contravention of\nss. 78 and 79 of the Act. [182 E-G]\n     (d) Even  otherwise,  in  the  absence  of\t a  specific\nqualification, if  the person  complaining has\ta subsisting\ninterest in  the protection of the registered trademark, his\ncomplaint cannot  be rejected  on the  ground that he had no\ncause of  action or  sufficient subsisting  interest to file\nthe complaint. In the instant case the appellant who was the\ncomplainant  was   not\tonly   a  dealer   in  the   beedies\nmanufactured and  sold by the registered owner of the trade-\nmark but also its constituted attorney. [182 H; 183 A-B]\n     (e) Even  with regard to offences under the Penal Code,\nordinarily, anyone  can set  the criminal  law in motion but\nthe various  provisions in  Chapter XIV, Cr. P.C. prescribes\nthe qualification  of the complainant which would enable him\nor her\tto file a complaint in respect of specified offences\nand no\tcourt can take cognizance of such offence unless the\ncomplainant satisfies the eligibility criterion; but, in the\nabsence of any such specification no court can throw-out the\ncomplaint or  decline to  take cognizance on the sole ground\nthat  the   complainant\t was   not  competent  to  file\t the\ncomplaint.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   [182 C-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.<br \/>\n516 of 1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tSpecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order<br \/>\ndated the  4th November, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High<br \/>\nCourt in Criminal Revision No. 652 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n<p>     V.M. Tarkunde, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Pinki Mishra for the<br \/>\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Harbans Lal and N.D. Garg for the Respondent.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">178<\/span><br \/>\n     DESAI, J.:\t Appellant Shri\t Vishwa Mitter,\t a dealer in<br \/>\nbeedies and  cigarettes as  also the constituted attorney of<br \/>\nM\/s.  Mangalore\t  Ganesh  Beedies   Works,  Mysore  filed  a<br \/>\ncomplaint in  the Court\t of Sub\t Divisional Magistrate,\t Ist<br \/>\nClass,\tPathankot   on\tDecember   6,  1977  complaining  of<br \/>\ncommission of  offences by the four respondents impleaded as<br \/>\naccused\t under\t Sections  78\tand  79\t of  the  Trade\t and<br \/>\nMerchandise Marks  Act, 1958  (&#8216;Act&#8217; for short) and Sec. 420<br \/>\nIPC. It\t was alleged in the complaint that the principals of<br \/>\nthe complainant\t M\/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedies Works, Mysore<br \/>\nare the\t registered owners of four trade marks in respect of<br \/>\nbeedies manufactured  by them.\tThe name under which beedies<br \/>\nmanufactured by\t the principals\t of the complainant are sold<br \/>\nin  the\t market\t is  &#8216;Mangalore\t Ganesh\t Beedies&#8217;  having  a<br \/>\nregistered trade  mark in  the\twrapper\t being\tpink  colour<br \/>\nwrapper containing the motif of Lord Ganesha and the numeral<br \/>\n&#8216;501&#8217;. One  additional registered  trade mark  used  by\t the<br \/>\nmanufacturers of the beedies is the &#8216;Ganesh Beedies&#8217; wrapped<br \/>\nin a  wrapper as  mentioned above and bearing a multy-colour<br \/>\nseal label  containing the  numeral &#8216;501&#8217; at its centre. The<br \/>\nowners of  the registered  trade  mark\tcame  to  know\tthat<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t4-M\/s Shri Ganesh Beedi Works, Chakradhapur,<br \/>\nBihar were  guilty of  infringing the  trade mark by using a<br \/>\nwrapper and seal label identical with or deceptively similar<br \/>\nto the\tregistered trade  mark and  the\t principals  of\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant filed  a suit  complaining of  infringement\t and<br \/>\npassing off  against the  4th respondent. There was a prayer<br \/>\nfor perpetual  injunction in  the suit.\t The suit ended in a<br \/>\ndecree in favour of the owners of the registered trade mark.<br \/>\nSomewhere in August 1977, the complainant who is a dealer in<br \/>\nthe beedies  manufactured by  the owners  of the  registered<br \/>\ntrade mark  came to know that the 4th respondent was selling<br \/>\nbeedies of inferior quality after wrapping them in a wrapper<br \/>\nand using  the trade mark deceptively similar to that of the<br \/>\nregistered trade mark. A complaint thereupon was filed which<br \/>\nled  to\t  the  seizure\tof  some  goods.  Subsequently,\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant came  to know  that the 4th respondent in league<br \/>\nwith the  2nd and  3rd respondents were storing for sale and<br \/>\nselling beedies\t of inferior  quality wrapped in deceptively<br \/>\nsimilar wrapper\t and were  thereby infringing the registered<br \/>\ntrade mark  despite the\t injunction of\tthe  Court.  It\t was<br \/>\nalleged\t that  respondents  Nos.  1  to\t 3  knowing  of\t the<br \/>\nregistered trade  mark in  favour of  the principals  of the<br \/>\ncomplainant were  storing for  sale and\t selling beedies  of<br \/>\ninferior quality  manufactured by  the\t4th  respondent\t and<br \/>\nwrapped in wrappers falsifying the registered trade mark and<br \/>\nthereby it  was alleged\t that respondents committed offences<br \/>\nunder Sections\t78 and\t79 of  the Act\tand Sec.  420 of the<br \/>\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">179<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     On this  complaint\t being\tfiled  after  a\t preliminary<br \/>\nenquiry, the  learned  Magistrate  directed  process  to  be<br \/>\nissued to  the accused.\t The accused moved revision petition<br \/>\nin the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh with a<br \/>\nrequest to  quash the  proceedings. The learned Single Judge<br \/>\nof the\tHigh Court  accepted the  revision petition  on\t the<br \/>\nnarrow ground  that the\t order issuing\tthe process is not a<br \/>\nspeaking  order\t and  directed\tthe  learned  Magistrate  to<br \/>\nconsider the  question of  issuing process  afresh. When the<br \/>\nmatter came back to the learned Magistrate, he after hearing<br \/>\nthe parties  held that\tno case was made out for issuing the<br \/>\nprocess and  proceeded to dismiss the complaint. The reasons<br \/>\nwhich  impelled\t  the  learned\t Magistrate  to\t  reach\t the<br \/>\naforementioned conclusion may better be extracted in his own<br \/>\nwords:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;That\t complainant   who  has\t filed\tthe  present<br \/>\n     complaint is not the Holder of the Trade Marks which is<br \/>\n     said  to\thave  been   impugned  by  the\taccused,  in<br \/>\n     collaboration with\t each other. He is only a sub-dealer<br \/>\n     of M\/s  Mangalore Ganesh  Beedies\tWorks,\tVinoba\tRoad<br \/>\n     Mysore, and  there must be hundred and thousand dealers<br \/>\n     of this firm, like him. It is only M\/s Mangalore Ganesh<br \/>\n     Beedies Works, who are holders of the Trade Mark and it<br \/>\n     is only  they who\tare competent  to file the complaint<br \/>\n     against the  accused. The\tcomplainant has\t got no\t any<br \/>\n     cause of  action,\tbecause\t the  trade  mark  which  is<br \/>\n     impugned by  the accused  does not\t belong to  him, but<br \/>\n     belongs to\t M\/s Ganesh Beedies Works, Mysore, Karnataka<br \/>\n     State. As\tno trade  mark of  the complainant  has been<br \/>\n     violated by  the accused as he is only a sub-dealer and<br \/>\n     not holding any trade mark. I find no reason absolutely<br \/>\n     to issue  the  process  and  the  complaint  is  hereby<br \/>\n     dismissed.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The complainant  moved the\t High Court  of\t Punjab\t and<br \/>\nHaryana in  Revision Petition  No. 652\tof 1980,  which\t was<br \/>\ndismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The reasons which appealed to the learned Magistrate to<br \/>\ncome to\t the conclusion\t that the  complaint  filed  by\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant  cannot   be  entertained\tbecause\t he  is\t not<br \/>\nregistered owner of the trade mark is clearly erroneous<br \/>\n     Sec. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides<br \/>\nfor trial  of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other<br \/>\nlaws. Sub-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">180<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Sec. (1)  of Sec.  4 deals  with offences  under the  Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code.  Sub-sec.  (2)  of\tSec.  4\t provides  that\t all<br \/>\noffences under\tany other law (other than offences under the<br \/>\nIndian Penal  Code) shall  be investigated,  inquired  into,<br \/>\ntried  and  otherwise  dealt  with  according  to  the\tsame<br \/>\nprovisions, but\t subject to any enactment for the time being<br \/>\nin force  regulating the  manner or  place of investigating,<br \/>\ninquiring  into,  trying  or  otherwise\t dealing  with\tsuch<br \/>\noffences. Fasciculus  of sections included in Chapter XIV of<br \/>\nthe Criminal Procedure Code set out conditions requisite for<br \/>\ninitiation of  proceedings. Sec. 190 provides for cognizance<br \/>\nof offences  by Magistrates  which inter  alia provides that<br \/>\nsubject to  the provisions  of Chapter XIV, an Magistrate of<br \/>\nthe first  class, and  any Magistrate  of the  second  class<br \/>\nspecially empowered  in this  behalf under  sub-section (2),<br \/>\nmay take  cognizance of\t any offence-(a)  upon\treceiving  a<br \/>\ncomplaint of facts which constitute such offence;&#8230;Sec. 190<br \/>\nthus confers  power on\tany Magistrate to take cognizance of<br \/>\nany offence  upon  receiving  a\t complaint  of\tfacts  which<br \/>\nconstitute such offence. It does not speak of any particular<br \/>\nqualification  for   the  complainant.\tGenerally  speaking,<br \/>\nanyone can  put the criminal law in motion unless there is a<br \/>\nspecific provision  to the  contrary. This  is\tspecifically<br \/>\nindicated by  the provision  of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 4 which<br \/>\nprovides that  all  offences  under  any  other\t law-meaning<br \/>\nthereby law  other  than  the  Indian  Penal  Code-shall  be<br \/>\ninvestigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with<br \/>\naccording  to\tthe  provisions\t in  the  Code\tof  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, but\tsubject to  any enactment for the time being<br \/>\nin force  regulating the  manner or  place of investigating,<br \/>\ninquiring  into,  trying  or  otherwise\t dealing  with\tsuch<br \/>\noffences. It  would follow  as a  necessary  corollary\tthat<br \/>\nunless in  any statute\tother  than  the  Code\tof  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure which\t prescribes an\toffence\t and  simultaneously<br \/>\nspecifies the  manner or  place of  investigating, inquiring<br \/>\ninto, trying  or otherwise  dealing with  such offences, the<br \/>\nprovisions of  the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply in<br \/>\nrespect of  such offences  and they  shall be  investigated,<br \/>\ninquired into,\ttried and  otherwise dealt with according to<br \/>\nthe provisions\tof the\tCode of Criminal Procedure. One such<br \/>\nprovision in  the Code\tof Criminal  Procedure in  Sec.\t 190<br \/>\nwhich empowers any Magistrate of the class specified therein<br \/>\nto take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint<br \/>\nof facts  which constitutes  such offence.  If after  taking<br \/>\ncognizance of  an offence  it is permissible under Sec. 192,<br \/>\nsuch Magistrate\t may make  over the case to other Magistrate<br \/>\ntherein specified.  Therefore, from  a combined\t reading  of<br \/>\nSec. 4(2) with Sec. 190 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">181<\/span><br \/>\nProcedure, it  transpires that\tupon a\tcomplaint filed by a<br \/>\nperson\tsetting-out  facts  therein  which  constitutes\t the<br \/>\noffence before\ta  Magistrate  specified  in  Sec.  190\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate will\t be competent  to  take\t cognizance  of\t the<br \/>\noffence irrespective of the qualifications or eligibility of<br \/>\nthe complainant\t to file the complaint. It must, however, be<br \/>\nconceded that  where a\tprovision to the contrary is made in<br \/>\nany  statute,\twhich  may  indicate  the  qualification  or<br \/>\neligibility of\ta complainant  to file\tthe  complaint,\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate before  taking cognizance  is  entitled  and\t has<br \/>\npower to  inquire  whether  the\t complainant  satisfies\t the<br \/>\neligibility criteria.  One illustration\t would indicate what<br \/>\ncan be\ta provision  to the contrary as contemplated by sub-<br \/>\nsec. (2)  of Sec.  4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec.<br \/>\n195(1) provides\t that no  Court shall take cognizance of any<br \/>\noffence set  out therein  except on the complaint in writing<br \/>\nof the\tpublic servant\tconcerned or  of some  other  public<br \/>\nservant\t to   whom  he\t is  administratively\tsubordinate.<br \/>\nSimilarly sub-sec.  (2) of  Sec. 195  provides that no Court<br \/>\nshall take  cognizance of  any\tof  the\t offences  specified<br \/>\ntherein except on the complaint in writing to that Court, or<br \/>\nto some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Sec.<br \/>\n198 provides  that no  Court shall  take  cognizance  of  an<br \/>\noffence punishable  under Chapter  XX of  the  Indian  Penal<br \/>\nCode, except  upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved<br \/>\nby the\toffence. Sec.  199 provides that no Court shall take<br \/>\ncognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the<br \/>\nIndian Penal  Code, except  upon a  complaint made  by\tsome<br \/>\nperson aggrieved  by the  offence. Sec. 20 of the Prevention<br \/>\nof Food\t Adulteration Act, 1954 provides that no prosecution<br \/>\nfor an\toffence under  the Act,\t not being  an offence under<br \/>\nSection 14  or Section\t14-A, shall be instituted except by,<br \/>\nor with the written consent of the Central Government or the<br \/>\nState Government  or a\tperson authorised in this behalf, by<br \/>\ngeneral or  special order,  by the Central Government or the<br \/>\nState Government.  Section 621\tof the\tCompanies Act,\t1956<br \/>\nprovides that  no Court shall take cognizance of any offence<br \/>\nagainst the Act (other than an offence with respect to which<br \/>\nproceedings are\t instituted under  section  545),  which  is<br \/>\nalleged to have been committed by any company or any officer<br \/>\nthereof,  except   on  the   complaint\tin  writing  of\t the<br \/>\nRegistrar, or  of a  shareholder of  the company,  or  of  a<br \/>\nperson authorised  by the Central Government in that behalf.<br \/>\nIt is not necessary to multiply the illustration.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  thus crystal  clear\t that  anyone  can  set\t the<br \/>\ncriminal law  in motion\t by  filing  a\tcomplaint  of  facts<br \/>\nconstituting an offence before<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">182<\/span><br \/>\na Magistrate  entitled to take cognizance under Sec. 190 and<br \/>\nunless\tany   statutory\t provision  prescribes\tany  special<br \/>\nqualification  or   eligibility\t criteria  for\tputting\t the<br \/>\ncriminal law  in  motion,  no  Court  can  decline  to\ttake<br \/>\ncognizance on  the sole\t ground that the complainant was not<br \/>\ncompetent to  file the\tcomplaint. Sec.\t 190 of\t the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure  clearly indicates that the qualification<br \/>\nof the\tcomplainant to file a complaint is not relevant. But<br \/>\nwhere any  special statute prescribes offences and makes any<br \/>\nspecial provision  for taking  cognizance of  such  offences<br \/>\nunder the statute, the complainant requesting the Magistrate<br \/>\nto  take   cognizance  of   the\t offence  must\tsatisfy\t the<br \/>\neligibility criterion  prescribed by  the statute. Even with<br \/>\nregard to  offences under the Indian Penal Code, ordinarily,<br \/>\nanyone can  set the  criminal law  in motion but the various<br \/>\nprovisions in Chapter XIV prescribe the qualification of the<br \/>\ncomplainant  which  would  enable  him\tor  her\t to  file  a<br \/>\ncomplaint in  respect of specified offences and no Court can<br \/>\ntake cognizance\t of  such  offence  unless  the\t complainant<br \/>\nsatisfies the  eligibility criterion,  but in the absence of<br \/>\nany such specification, no Court can throw-out the complaint<br \/>\nor decline  to take  the cognizance  on the sole ground that<br \/>\nthe complainant was not competent to file the complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 89 of the Act provides that no Court shall take<br \/>\ncognizance of  an offence  under Section  81, Section  82 or<br \/>\nSection 83  except on  a complaint  in writing\tmade by\t the<br \/>\nRegistrar or  any officer authorised by him in writing. This<br \/>\nprovision  manifests   the  legislative\t intention  that  in<br \/>\nrespect of  the three  specified offences  punishable  under<br \/>\nSections 81,  82 and 83, the Registrar alone is competent to<br \/>\nfile the  complaint. This  would simultaneously show that in<br \/>\nrespect of  other offences  under  the\tAct,  the  provision<br \/>\ncontained in Sec. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read<br \/>\nwith sub-sec.  (2) of Sec. 4 would permit anyone to file the<br \/>\ncomplaint. The\tindication to  the contrary  as envisaged by<br \/>\nsub-sec. 2 of Sec. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to<br \/>\nbe found  in Sec. 89 and that section does not prescribe any<br \/>\nparticular eligibility criterion or qualification for filing<br \/>\na complaint  for contravention\tof Sections 78 and 79 of the<br \/>\nAct. Therefore,\t the learned  Magistrate  was  in  error  in<br \/>\nrejecting  the\t complaint  on\tthe  sole  ground  that\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant was not entitled to file the complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Even  otherwise   in  the\t absence   of\ta   specific<br \/>\nqualification, if  the person  complaining has\ta subsisting<br \/>\ninterest in the protection of the registered trade mark, his<br \/>\ncomplaint cannot be rejected on the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">183<\/span><br \/>\nground that  he\t had  no  cause\t of  action  nor  sufficient<br \/>\nsubsisting interest  to file  the complaint.  M\/s  Mangalore<br \/>\nGanesh Beedies\tWorks, a  partnership firm is the registered<br \/>\nowner of  trade marks,\tfalsification  and  infringement  of<br \/>\nwhich is  complained by\t the present complainant, who is not<br \/>\nonly a\tdealer in these beedies manufactured and sold by the<br \/>\nregistered owner  of the  trade marks,\tbut he\tis also\t the<br \/>\nconstituted attorney  of the  owners of the registered trade<br \/>\nmark. To say that the owner of the registered trade mark can<br \/>\nalone file  the complaint  is contrary\tto the provisions of<br \/>\nthe statute and commonsense and reason. Therefore, the order<br \/>\nof the\tlearned Magistrate  dismissing the  complaint at the<br \/>\nthreshold on  the ground  that the  present appellant has no<br \/>\ncause  of   action  to\t file  the   complaint\tis   utterly<br \/>\nunsustainable  and   must  be\tquashed\t  and\tset   aside.<br \/>\nSurprisingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition<br \/>\nof  the\t  complainant  in  limine  which  order\t is  equally<br \/>\nunsustainable and must be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This appeal  is accordingly  allowed and  order of\t the<br \/>\nlearned Magistrate  dismissing the complaint and refusing to<br \/>\nissue process  dated February  20, 1980 and the order of the<br \/>\nHigh Court  rejecting the  revision petition in limine dated<br \/>\nNovember 4, 1980 are set aside and the matter is remanded to<br \/>\nthe learned  Magistrate to  proceed further according to law<br \/>\nin the light of the observations made in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<pre>H.L.C.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">184<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR, 5 1984 SCR (1) 176 Author: D Desai Bench: Desai, D.A. PETITIONER: VISHWA MITTER Vs. RESPONDENT: O. P. PODDAR AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/09\/1983 BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) CITATION: [&hellip;]<\/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-218599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1983-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-05T02:43:53+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-05T02:43:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983\"},\"wordCount\":2431,\"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\\\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983\",\"name\":\"Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-05T02:43:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-05T02:43:53+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983","datePublished":"1983-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-05T02:43:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983"},"wordCount":2431,"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\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983","name":"Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-05T02:43:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwa-mitter-vs-o-p-poddar-and-others-on-30-september-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983"}]},{"@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\/218599","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=218599"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218599\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}