Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Prasad learned counsel forthe petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner who runs small shop dealing with the motor parts is aggrieved by order dated 5.4.2006 passed by Sri T. Nath, J.M. Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in Muzaffarpur Town RS. Case No. 41/06 whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420,468,471 and 120-B of the I.P.C. and 78, 79 of Trade and Mercantile Act. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) was repealed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and as such the cognizance against the petitioner so far as it has been taken under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have perused the records and it appears therefrom, specially Sec.159 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, that the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 has been repealed, therefore, obviously the learned Judicial Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance against the petitioner in respect of the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 6. Accordingly, the cognizance so far as it has been taken under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 is hereby quashed. However, the cognizance in respect of the provisions under the Indian Penal Code shall continue which is hereby held to be valid. 7. Accordingly, this application is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.