JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This revision is against the order of the Court below dated 26-7-1971, by which the petitioners have been summoned to stand their trial for offences under section 482/109 Indian Penal Code and under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (here in after referred to as the Act). 2. On a complaint filed before the learned S.D.M. at Bhadrak, cognizanoe of offence under sections 78 and 79 of the Act and under section 482 Indian Penal Code was taken by S.D.M. on 1-7-1970 after examining the complainant and one witness produced by him. After taking cognizanoe of the aforesaid offences the S.D.M. ordered on 10-7-1970 the officer-in-charge, Bhadrak Police Station to enquire into the matter under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code and to submit his report. On receiving the enquiry report the S.D.M. on 13-8-1970 issued summons against one accused, who is not a petitioner in this revision, for offences under sections 78 and 79 of the Act. After the appearance of the said accused in his Court he, on 10-11-1970, transferred the case to the Court below for disposal according to law. The Court below examined two witnesses, and on 26-7-1971 passed the impugned order which is as follows :- "From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, there appears a prima facie case against the accused Siddique Hossain and Safique Ahmed. Hence summon these accused persons under sections 109/482 Indian Penal Code and 78 and 79, Trade Merchandise Act, posting the case to 10-9-1971. Accused as before." 3. Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the transferee magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence under section 482/109 Indian Penal Code, and had no jurisdiction to summon the two petitioners for the aforesaid offence, as the learned S.D.M. on 13-8-1970 had taken cognizance only of offences under sections 78 and 79 of the Act, and transferred that case to be tried by the transferee magistrate. This contention is factually incorrect and legally unsound. It is evident from the order sheet of the case that on the filing of the complaint, the learned S.D.M. on 7-7-1970, apart from taking cognizance of the aforesaid two offences under the Act, took cognizance of an offence under section 482 Indian Penal Code after examining the complainant and another witness produced by him. It is evident from the order sheet of the case that on the filing of the complaint, the learned S.D.M. on 7-7-1970, apart from taking cognizance of the aforesaid two offences under the Act, took cognizance of an offence under section 482 Indian Penal Code after examining the complainant and another witness produced by him. So in fact cognizance of an offence under section 482, Indian Penal Code had actually been taken in this case. After taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences on 7-7-1970, and after getting the matter enquired into under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code the learned .S.D.M. on 13-8-1970 recorded an order as follows:- "Complainant is present. Heard. Perused the report. Cognizance is taken under sections 78 and 79, The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Summon the accused fixing to 7-9-1970. Complainant to take steps." Merely because the S.D.M. by this order stated that he took cognizance of the aforesaid two offences under the Act it cannot be said that cognizance of the offence under section 482 Indian Penal Code taken earlier on 7-7-1970, was rendered ineffective or in-fructuous for all intents and purposes. The S.D.M's order dated 13-8-1970, properly construed, means that on a perusal of the enquiry report he summoned the other accused for trial for the said two offences under the Act. So cognizance of the offence under section 482, Indian Penal Code had actually been taken in this case by the proper Court and the petitioners have only been summoned to stand their trial as abettors of the said offence under the provisions of section 109, Indian Penal Code. 4. It is well settled that once cognizance is taken by the proper Court and the case is transferred to another magistrate then the transferee magistrate is in full seisin of the case, and he can issue process against new persons also whom be, on the evidence on record, finds concerned in the offence. This is so because cognizance is taken of the offence and not of individual offenders. The whole case must be taken to have been transferred, so that the entire case, in all its aspects, against the accused on record and/or against any other persons found concerned in the case, can properly be dealt with in accordance with law. This is so because cognizance is taken of the offence and not of individual offenders. The whole case must be taken to have been transferred, so that the entire case, in all its aspects, against the accused on record and/or against any other persons found concerned in the case, can properly be dealt with in accordance with law. On the above considerations the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in issuing process against the petitioner requiring their attendance in Court to stand their trial for the offences mentioned above. So I do not find anything wrong in the impugned order. 5. There is, therefore, no merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. The lower Court records be sent back to the Court below very soon. The Court below should proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Final Result : Dismissed