P. K. BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 397/401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Mustan Patel, accused petitioner against the opposite party praying for quashing and/or setting aside the order dated 2. 7. 97 and to quash the case being G. R. Case No. 1859 of 1994 pending before the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The facts leading to the filing of the present application may be summarised as follows :- ( 2 ) THE petitioner is one of the partners of M/s. Orient Machinery and Mill Stores. ( 3 ) ASHOK Kumar Ghosh, Deputy Sales Manager of Mahindra Engineering and Chemicals Products Ltd. , filed one petition of complaint under sections 120b / 420 / 482 / 483 / 485 / 486 / 487 / 489 of Indian Penal Code and sections 78 and 79 of T. M. M. Act before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against some unknown shopkeepers and traders in Calcutta and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta sent the aforesaid complaint to the Enforcement Branch, Calcutta with a direction to investigate in terms of section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure treating the said petition of complaint as the FIR and on receipt of the same, the Enforcement Branch registered a case being Hare Street P. S. Case No. 322 dated 27. 7. 1994. ( 4 ) IT was further alleged in the petition of complaint that the complainant company was the manufacturer of 'm-Seal' range of products and is the registered Trade Mark holder in respect of epoxy rasin compositions used for cementing cracks, holes, leaks and similar defects in metal articles and for other technical purposes and by virtue of the high quality of the product, the brand has acquired a great reputation in the market. ( 5 ) DUE to the grant success for the 'm-Seal' product, some unscrupulous manufacturers have introduced deceptively similar products and also copies the brand name 'm-Seal' and are selling such spurious and duplicate products clandestinely and in order to deceive unwary customers have packed spurious materials with identical packing of 'm-Seal' thereby fraudulently representing customers their fake goods as genuine products and inducing the customers to purchase spurious goods by offering higher discount to the shopkeepers/purchasers. ( 6 ) IN view of such clandestine manufacture and sale of spurious, deceptively similar product, the credibility of genuine "m-Seal' sold by company's dealers are adversely affected because of large amount of discount offered by the manufacturer to the shopkeepers dealing in such spurious goods. ( 7 ) THE complainant company started making enquiry at various places including Bombay and Calcutta and came to learn that the accused in criminal conspiracy and in collusion with each other are manufacturing, storing, selling and marketing their spurious products in the brand name of 'm-Seal'. The materials were examined by Works Manager and Quality Control Department of the complainant company who certified them to be spurious and much below the standard of 'm-Seal'. ( 8 ) THE accused persons are selling their spurious products packed in the brand name of 'm-Seal' in the various markets including Netaji Subhas Road, Burrabazar, Ezra Street area. The entire packing is very much similar and identical to the original and actual packing of 'm-Seal' products and bearing false trade marks and false trade description and as such they have committed offences punishable under sections 420 / 482 / 483 / 485 / 486 / 487 / 488 and 489 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 9 ) ON 27. 7. 94, the Enforcement Branch raided petitioner's shop-room styled as Orient Machinery and Mill Stores and allegedly recovered 36 sealed packets of 'm-Seal' weighing about 1 kg. and 10 packed packets of 'm-Seal', each weighing about 250 gm. and one sealed packed packet of 'm-Seal' containing 10 packets of 100g. and 14 small packets of 'm-Seal' each weighing 100gm. and seized those articles from the aforesaid shop room and on the self-same date petitioner was arrested along with the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and they were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 28. 7. 94 when they were enlarged on bail. ( 10 ) THE Enforcement Branch after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 29. 7. 95 under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 78 and 79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act against the present petitioner and others, and the said learned Court after taking cognizance transferred the case to the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for disposal. ( 10 ) THE Enforcement Branch after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 29. 7. 95 under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 78 and 79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act against the present petitioner and others, and the said learned Court after taking cognizance transferred the case to the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for disposal. ( 11 ) FROM the side of the petitioner, during the course of hearing, on the issue of consideration of the charge, submission was made that the accused persons are liable to be discharged as there was non-compliance with the provisions of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it was further submitted that as sections 78/79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act is a full fledged section containing ingredients of 'fraud and deception' as such there cannot be any charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code along with charges under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. But the learned Court of 17th Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta was pleased to reject the submissions of the petitioner and was pleased to hold that the impugned case was maintainable under sections 78 and 79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act only and accordingly a date was fixed for taking plea. ( 12 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 2. 7. 97 for not discharging the present petitioner the instant application has been filed alleging that the accused persons should have been discharged for non-compliance with the provisions as laid down under section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such they have come up with the aforesaid reliefs. ( 13 ) I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. ( 13 ) I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Kumar Dutt and Sri Ashim Roy, learned counsel for the state who taking me through the police papers submitted by the I. O. has contended before me that the charge-sheet of the present case disclosed sufficient materials to proceed against the present petitioners also under section 420 of the IPC and he has strenuously argued before the Court that since the impugned order is under scrutiny of this Court, even if no formal application has been filed by the State against the aforesaid impugned order, this Court has every right to scrutinize the order and to see as to whether there should have been also a charge under section 420 of the IPC, apart from the provisions of sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act against the present accused persons. ( 14 ) UPON reading the impugned application, as it stands, it appears to me that it was the contention of the accused petitioner that the entire proceedings initiated against him and pending before the learned Magistrate is not maintainable in law, and is void ab initio inasmuch as the allegations made in the complaint petition, if accepted in its entirety do not disclose any offence far less cognizable offence, committed by him and as such, the learned Magistrate could not and should not have acted mechanically in directing the Enforcement Branch, Calcutta to investigate the case under section 156 (3) of the Code without due application of his mind to the facts of this case. But, at that stage it was not available to be Magistrate to scrutinize the entire ingredients of the sections complained of in such petition under section 156 (3) and the offence under section 420 of the IPC, being indeed a cognizable offence, no wrong or illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate in forwarding the aforesaid petition of complaint under section 156 (3) of the Code. And, on that score, I find no illegality whatsoever and as such there cannot be any interference by this Court on that count. And, on that score, I find no illegality whatsoever and as such there cannot be any interference by this Court on that count. ( 15 ) NEXT objection has been taken from the side of the accused petitioner that there has been non-compliance with the provisions of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the investigation has not been completed within a period of 6 months. But, that is also not available to the present petitioner inasmuch as the petition of complaint which was sent to the Investigating Agency under section 156 (3) of Cr. PC, contained allegations under section 420 of IPC along with other sections which is indeed a cognizable offence prescribing punishment for a period of 7 years and fine and as such as per the requirements of section 167 (5) (III) as per West Bengal Amendment, the investigation of this case was required to be completed within a period of 2 years from the date on which the accused was arrested or made his appearance before the Court. ( 16 ) HERE, in this case, no violation of such provision has been brought to my notice and indeed, I find that there has been no such violation as alleged in this case as the Investigating Agency was not required to complete the investigation within a period of 6 months. So, on that count, also, no interference by this Court is warranted. ( 17 ) NOW, upon reading the complaint petition as a whole, and the allegations made therein, taken in their face value accepting them in their entirety, as they are, I find that there is sufficient material at least under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 against the present accused persons. So, I find nothing wrong and illegal in the impugned order, passed by the learned Magistrate, and as such quashing, as sought for, is not possible in connection with this case. ( 18 ) IT has also been claimed by the prosecution that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the present petitioner also under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code apart from other sections of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and in view of such submissions, we are now to examine the materials produced on behalf of the State from the case diary. ( 19 ) TO examine and appreciate the aforesaid contentions we are to look into the definition of 'cheating' as also to the ingredients which requires to constitute an offence of 'cheating' :-in terms of section 415, IPC, whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind reputation or property, is said to "cheat". "the ingredients required to constitute an offence of cheating are: 1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, 2. (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and 3. In cases covered by (2) (b) the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property," ( 20 ) PERUSING the materials available from the case diary, I find that there is not the nearest and faintest whisper about any of the aforesaid ingredients within the four corners of the complaint petition and on overall scrutiny of the material, it cannot at all be contended that an offence punishable under section 420 of IPC have been made out as such against accused petitioner. ( 21 ) IN a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Syed Kaleem v. Mysore Lakshmi Beedi Works and Anr. reported in Cr LJ (1993) page 232, it was held by the learned single Judge that in view of sections 78 and 79 of the said Act providing penalty for applying false trade descriptions etc. , and selling goods to which a false Trade Mark or false Trade description is applied, a charge under section 420 of IPC become wholly inapt. , and selling goods to which a false Trade Mark or false Trade description is applied, a charge under section 420 of IPC become wholly inapt. ( 22 ) SUBSEQUENT decision by a single Judge of this Court reported in 1996 Cr LJ 290 also took similar view. I also fully concur with the aforesaid views. ( 23 ) IN view of the above, I hold that the materials available on record do not make out any alleged offence punishable under section 420 IPC against the accused persons and as such there is no reason for interference by this Court with regard to the impugned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta wherein it has been categorically held by him that the present case shall proceed against the accused persons/petitioners under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. In consequence thereof, I find no sufficient merit in the revisional application for interference by this Court at this stage. This revisional application is, thus, dismissed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court below for information and necessary compliance with a direction to proceed in this case as expeditiously as possible. Application dismissed