JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited against the accused respondent M/s. Rajasthani, Rajasthan Small Scale Handicraft Industries against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 490/95 by which the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 78, 79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Sections 482 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case set up by the appellant is that the complainant is the enterprises of the State Government and since number of years doing business of handicraft items in the name of Rajasthali. 3. The accused respondent is doing the business in the name of Rajasthani and having its unit in Shishodiya Garden and doing business of handicraft items. The complainant appellant with a view to promote the handicrafts items in State of Rajasthan is using the name of Rajasthali Trade Mark and having number of showrooms of Rajasthali at different places. The appellant has earned the name and fame and goodwill and the foreign and local tourists are purchasing items from the mark of Rajasthali. The Rajasthali name has been written in an artistic way and the appellant (complainant) is registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 4. The accused respondent with a view to cause undue loss to the appellant and with a view to take undue advantage and gain to itself and without permission and consent of the appellant, has written word "Rajasthani" in the same style and manner which gives impression that it is Rajasthali. As such the accused respondent is doing trade of the handicraft items after giving impression that it belongs to Rajasthali and thus by deceitful means the goods are sold to the customers as such it is an offence committed under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Indian Penal Code. The complainant appellant has already served notices by way of publication in "Rajasthan Patrika" but the accused respondent in spite of notice by way of publication, is suing the same name and thus the accused respondent should be punished. The complainant appellant has already served notices by way of publication in "Rajasthan Patrika" but the accused respondent in spite of notice by way of publication, is suing the same name and thus the accused respondent should be punished. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 78, 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and section 482 and 486, IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondent, but he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Upon filing the complaint by the complainant appellant before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City. Jaipur, statements of Ravi Agarwal (PW. 1), Shambhu Dayal (PW. 2) and Ravi Gupta (PW. 3) were recorded. Statements u/s. 313 Cr.PC. were recorded by the trial court. In defence, Pradeep Gupta (DW. 1) was examined. 5. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 08.04.2002 acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence charged against him. 6. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order and judgment of the learned trial court dated 08.04.2002, the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited through its Secretary Shri R.S. Agarwal, has preferred this appeal. 7. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned counsel Ms. Anita Jain has contended that the learned Magistrate has not considered the statements of the witnesses properly. She has contended that the learned trial court has given the benefit of doubt while the appellant has proved the fact and established the case against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that the appellant is doing the business in handicraft in the name of Rajasthali under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. She has contended the appellant has placed on record the certificate issued by the Trade and Merchandise Department in favour of the appellant and as such nobody except the appellant. has any right to use the same trade marks. She has contended that the learned trial court has committed gross error by observing that the appellant may approach civil court. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 8.4.2002 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 8. has any right to use the same trade marks. She has contended that the learned trial court has committed gross error by observing that the appellant may approach civil court. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 8.4.2002 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Parag Rastogi appearing on behalf the accused-respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after appreciating the prosecution witnesses the learned trial court has rightly 15 acquitted the accused respondent. He has contended that only three witnesses have been produced by the complainant appellant and the complainant was not authorised by the corporation to file the complaint against the accused respondent. He has contended that although it appears from the cash memos or from other documents (Ex.P. 1, 2 and 3) that the name of Rajasthali has been written but there is no figure of dancing peacock on the aforesaid documents or in any other documents which were submitted by the appellant. He has contended that the accused respondent has not used copied anything from the complainant in a dishonest manner. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant appellant as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 10. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 8.4.2002 passed by the learned trial court, I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondent. 11. Looking to the evidence just discussed above. it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for which who has been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent.The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : SC 2006 Vol. as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent.The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : SC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 12. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited through its Secretary, Shri R.S. Agarwal fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 8.4.2002 passed by the teamed Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur.State Appeal Dismissed. *******