JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The abovenoted two petitions have been made by the petitioner, Amrit Lai Chopra, under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of FIR No 189/93 dated 27-9-1993, Police Station, Sadar, Nahan and the consequential proceedings pending before the Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Nahan, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to the present petition are these. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Kala Niketan The Mall, Shimla. This firm is the duly authorised dealer of M/s Binny Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture of Textiles. Tenders were invited by the Controller of Stores, Government of Himachal Pradesh, for the award of rate contract in respect of the supply of Terrycot cloth (khaki) In pursuance of such invitation, M/s Binny Limited submitted its tender dated 14 8-1992. Though M/s Binny Limited had quoted the rate of Rs 69. SOP per metre for the terry cot khaki cloth as per their sample No. B/l/92, it appears through subsequent negotiation, the rate was agreed and approved at Rs, 65 per metre. The necessary agreement came to be entered into between the Government of Himachal Pradesh through Controller of Stores and the petitioner acting as Service Agents for M/s Binny Limited on 9-4-1993, whereby the latter agreed to supply Terrycot khaki cloth as per the sample B/l/92 at the rate of Rs, 65 per metre inclusive of Excise Duty and Sales Tax. As per the terms the composition (blend) of Terrycot fabric was :— (i) Polyester 67 (ii) Cotton 33% (iii) Width 137 cms. (iv) Mark "Airmarshal". This rate contract was valid upto 30-6-1994. 3. In pursuance to such rate contract, the Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur at Nahan, on 1-9 1993, placed an order with the petitioner in his capacity as the service agent of M/s Binny Limited for the supply of 1500 metres of Terrycot khaki cloth. The cloth was supplied by the petitioner vide bill dated 6-9-1993. The total cost of 1500 metres of cloth being Rs. 97,500 The cloth so supplied did not conform to the sample on the basis of which rate contract was awarded. It was substandard. 4. The cloth was supplied by the petitioner vide bill dated 6-9-1993. The total cost of 1500 metres of cloth being Rs. 97,500 The cloth so supplied did not conform to the sample on the basis of which rate contract was awarded. It was substandard. 4. Accordingly, on the basis of the report made by the Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur at Nahan, a case under section 420, Indian Penal Code, came to be registered at Police Station, Sadar, Nahan, vide FIR No, 189/ 1993 on 27-9-i993. It was reported that the cloth supplied had the composition of polyester and cotton in the ratio of 52% and 48%, though the stamps affixed indicated the composition of polyester and cotton in the ratio of 67% and 33%. Besides, though the cloth supplied was described as of the make of ‘Airmarshal", the bundle bore the stamp-mark of "Marathon". 5. After necessary investigation, two separate charge-sheets were prepared and submitted to the courts against the petitioner and M/s Binny Limited as under : “1. Charge-sheet for the offence under section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, read with sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandies Act was submitted in the Court of Special Judge, Nahan, (being Session Trial No. 16-N/7 of 1994). 2. Charge-sheet for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 482, Indian Penal Code was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan (being case No. 25/2 of 1994). On a petition having been filed by M/s Binny Limited, under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 227, Constitution of India by M/s Binny Limited, being petition No. Cr. M.P. (M) 471 of 1994, decided on 11-4-1996, FIR No. 189/93 and the consequential two Criminal cases, referred to above, were set aside and quashed as against the said company M/s Binny Limited. 6. By virtue of the present petitions, the petitioner has sought setting aside and quashing of the above referred to FIR 189/93, Police Station, Sadar, Nahan, as well as the two criminal cases, pending before the Special Judge, Nahan and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, respectively. It is averred that there is no material on the record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences. 7. In the reply affidavit submitted by the respondents, the allegations made in the FIR No. 189/93, have been reiterated. 8. It is averred that there is no material on the record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences. 7. In the reply affidavit submitted by the respondents, the allegations made in the FIR No. 189/93, have been reiterated. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The first offence alleged against the petitioner is under section 3/7, 1 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Before a person can be said to have committed an offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, it has to be shown that the concerned article is an "essential commodity" within the meaning of the Act. Section 2(a), Essential Commodities Act, 1955, defines "essential commodities" in the following terms :— "(a) essential commodities means any of the following classes of commodities— (i) cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates ; (ii) coal, including coke and other derivatives ; (iii) component parts and accessories of automobiles ; (iv) cotton and woollen textiles ; (iva) drugs ; Explanation.—In this sub-clause, drug has the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) ; (v) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils ; (vi) iron and steel, including manufactured products of iron and steel; (vii) paper, including newsprint, paper board and straw board ; (viii) petroleum and petroleum products ; (ix) raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed ; (x) raw jute ; (xi) any other class of commodity which the Central Government may, by notified order, declare to be an essential commodity for the purpose of this Act, being a commodity with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws by virtue of Entry 33 in List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution." The commodity involved in the present case is "terrycot cloth". J The cloth does not fall within the ambit of any of the clauses (i) to (x) of section 2(a) quoted above Nothing has been placed on the record to show that terrycot cloth was ever declared to be an essential commodity by the Central Government under clause (xi) of section 2(a) above., Therefore, in the absence of material to show that “Terrycot cloth" is an essential commodity, the offence under section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is not made out. 9. 9. Section 78, The Trade and Merchandies Act, 1955, provides for penalty for applying false trade marks of trade description, while section 79 of the said Act provides for penalties for selling goods to which a false trade mark or false trade description has been applied. Both these offences fall under Chapter X of the Act. 10. Section 2(v) of the said Act, defines "trade mark". In so far as it is material for the purpose of the present case, section 2(v) reads :— “trade mark means— (i) in relation to Chapter X (other than section 81), a registered trade mark for a mark used in relation to goods for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods and some person having the right as proprietor to use the mark ; and (ii) .........................." 11. The word "trade description" has been defined under section 2(u), as under :-— “ trade description means any description, statement or other indication direct or indirect,— (i) as to the number, quantity, measure, guage or weight of any goods ; or (ii) as to the standard of quality of any goods, according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade ; or (iii) as to fitness for the purpose, strength, performance or behavior of any goods, being Mug as defined in the Drugs Act, 1940 or food as defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ; or (iv) as to the place or country in which or the time at which any goods were made or produced ; or (v) as to the name and address or other indication of the identity of the manufacturer or of the person for whom the goods are manufactured ; or (vi) as to the mode of manufacture or producing any goods ; or (vii) as to the material of which any goods are composed ; or (viii) as to any goods the being the subject of an existing patent, privilege or copyright; and includes — (a) any description as to the use of any mark which according to the custom of the trade is commonly taken to be an indication of any of the above matters ; (b) the description as to any imported goods contained in a bill of entry or shipping bill ; (c) any other description which is likely to be misunderstood or mistaken for all or any of the said matters " 12. Admittedly, in the present case, there has been no use of a false trade mark, The Terrycot cloth supplied was of Binny, Learned Assistant Advocate has contended that this is a case of application of false trade description and sale of such goods to which a false trade description had been applied. The false trade description applied are alleged to be to the following effect : - (a) The blend of Terrycot cloth though had the composition of Polyester and cotton in the ratio of 52% and 48% it was marked and shown to have such composition in the ratio of 67% and 33% ; and (b) The cloth though was of the mark "Marathon" was described and marked as "Airmarshal". 13. 13. Even if the above version put forth by the prosecution is taken on its face value, there is no material to show that such wrong description was applied by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is the service agent of M/s Binny Limited. In such capacity, he will be presumed to have supplied the cloth to the purchasers/consumers, in the condition and with the marks/stamps as received by him from his principal, M/s Binny Limited, unless there is something to show to the contrary. In the present case, neither there are averments in the FIR nor evidence to show that wrong trade description, if any, had been applied by the petitioner at his own level. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the FIR and the two cases, on similar allegations, as against the principal and the petitioner stand set aside and quashed. 14. Even if it be assumed that the petitioner had applied false trade description to the cloth supplied by wrongly indicating it to be of "Airmarshal” make and having the blend with the composition of polyester and cotton in the ratio of 67% and 31%, such act on his part will not make out of a case for the offences under sections 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code. All these offences refer to forgery of documents. The cloth, in the present case, does not fall within the definition of document’ as contained in section 29, Indian Penal Code. Besides, as pointed out above, while discussing the offences under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958, there are neither allegations nor evidence to show that such wrong descriptions were applied by the petitioner. 15. Insofar as the offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is significant to note that the primary element of the offence, namely, inducement on the part of the petitioner is missing. The terms of the rate contract, inter alia, provide :— “The goods will be inspected before despatch by the consignee or his authorised representative and the inspecting officer will in his inspection note certify that the same is as per approved counter sample lying with the supplies." 16. The material coming on the record shows that the cloth was never inspected by the consignee, namely, the Superintendent of Police, before it was collected by him from the office of the petitioner. The material coming on the record shows that the cloth was never inspected by the consignee, namely, the Superintendent of Police, before it was collected by him from the office of the petitioner. If the consignee has himself been negligent, the petitioner cannot be held to have committed the offence of cheating. The record further shows that prior to the lodging of the FIR and the registration of the case, the consignee does not appear to have made any complaint either to the petitioner or his principal about the cloth being substandard and not conforming to the approved sample. So much so, that the cloth was also never returned to the petitioner. The allegations made in the FIR and evidence collected during investigation does not show any inducement on the part of the petitioner, Therefore, the offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code is also not made out. 17. The offence under section 482, Indian Penal Code is also not made out. This offence pertains to use of false "property mark". Section 479, Indian Penal Code, defines "property mark” as a mark used for denoting that movable property belongs to a particular person. The putting of wrong trade description would not bring the case within the mischief of the definition of "property mark". 18. In the present case, considering the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation do not disclose the commission of any cognizance offence. Therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner. 19. Resultantly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No. 189/93 of Police Station, Sadar, Nahan, and the consequential two criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge, Nahan (Session trial No. 16-S/7 of 1994) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan (Criminal Case No. 25/2 of 1994) against the petitioner are set aside and quashed. Let a copy of the order be sent to the two Courts below for information and compliance. Petitions allowed