JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner, one of the F.I.R. named accused of Phulwari P.S. Case No. 446 of 2005, claiming himself to be the proprietor of the factory running in the name and style of "M/s. Shalimar Cement Colour Industries"(hereinafter referred to as "the factory"), has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 2.3.2007 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2006 whereby while dismissing the revision he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the seized articles belonging to him on the ground of their being amenable to wastage and damage. 2. The aforesaid case was registered under Sections 420/34 I.P.C. on the basis of the written reported dated 5.7.2005 submitted by A.S.I.-cum-Incharge of Gopalpur O.P. According to the prosecution case the informant on the orders of the S.D.O., in the company of the personnel of the Central Excise Department and police personnel raided the premises of the factory of the petitioner and in course of search huge quantity of incriminating articles such as paint, varnish, primer, cem, water proof cement etc. were recovered and duly seized under a seizure list. The petitioner is said to have been present during the search and seizure and on interrogation is said to have disclosed that his factory is a small production unit engaged in manufacturing paint, varnish, cem etc. which sells in Patna and its surrounding areas. He also revealed that apart from being the proprietor he is also the "all in all" including being the Marketing Manager. His factory and godown is located in the same building and that he is registered with the Finance Department and pays excise and sales tax. He further disclosed that he had no particular brand name for his products. It is alleged that the containers containing paints had the brand name "Shalimar" and the address of the manufacturer was given as "H.O. Garden Rich, Ramnagar More, Kolkata" in very small letters. On the aforesaid premise it was alleged that the petitioner was cheating the public at large by misrepresenting his products to be those of the famous "Shalimar" Company by using its brand name and giving an address of Kolkata. 3. On the aforesaid premise it was alleged that the petitioner was cheating the public at large by misrepresenting his products to be those of the famous "Shalimar" Company by using its brand name and giving an address of Kolkata. 3. The submission by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that his factory manufacturing paints is duly registered with the Finance Department of Government of Bihar as "M/s Shalimar Cement Colour Industries" vide Registration No. 03191699508 dated 27.2.2000 as also with the Small Scale Industries and pays sales tax to the Government of Bihar and as such was running the factory legally and by complying with all the legal requirements laid down by the Government for running such factory. It was further submitted that he was unnecessarily being harassed by the police due to ulterior motive and that the allegation of using and selling products by misusing the name of Shalimar Paint Company without proper authorization was an apparent misnomer. Grievance was raised of the courts below not having appreciated and considered the supportive documents filed by him. A prayer has been made to release the seized articles as the same was lying in the open and was facing damage. 4. To show an offence of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention of deception. 5. In the instant case even admitting and accepting the fact that the petitioner had fulfilled all legal requirements for running his factory, he nowhere states as to the brand name of his products. He has also not disclosed before the informant or in the present application that the Head Office of his concern is at Garden Reach at Kolkata and yet on the containers found and seized from his factory premises the address furnished is of Kolkata. Is it with the culpable intention of deception and committing fraud? The Kolkata address on the containers probably was with the intention to deceive people to buy his products which had the purchaser known the truth would have omitted to purchase in due course. 6. In the circumstances, I am in agreement with the two courts below that the seized articles would be used as material exhibits in course of the trial and hence cannot be released. It goes without saying that seized articles are likely to be used for proving the prosecution case. 7. 6. In the circumstances, I am in agreement with the two courts below that the seized articles would be used as material exhibits in course of the trial and hence cannot be released. It goes without saying that seized articles are likely to be used for proving the prosecution case. 7. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed.