ORDER : 1. The petitioner faced the trial on the charge under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 483 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') read with section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as amended by the Act of 1999. 2. The charge against the petitioner was that he was found using a trademark deceptively containing fake vermilion and registration for re-packaging. 3. In the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses to substantiate the aforesaid charges framed against the petitioner. 4. The defence put forth by the petitioner through DW1 was that he was manufacturer of vermilion and colour in the name of SKM Minerals which is registered with Registration No.034207754 vide Ext. A. The petitioner set up a plea that Mr. Krishna Prasad Gupta of Lakhisarai was owner of the incriminating articles and it was Krishna Prasad Gupta who vide letter dated 2nd January 2002 sent 2000 empty packets and labels for filling up of vermilion. The letter written by Krishna Prasad Gupta and his signature were laid in evidence vide Ext. B. The said person also filed an affidavit vide Ext. C to support the stand taken by the petitioner during the trial. Certain other documentary evidences were also produced by the petitioner to show by preponderance of probability that the accusations against him are not proved. 5. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur on consideration of the materials on record held as under: “12. Heard the Ld. counsel for the defence he submitted the accused has been implicated falsely in this case. The admitted fact is that the accused was a registered manufacturer of colour and vermilliam. He has submitted his registration certificate which was enrolled in Registry Department. But he was only the supplied and one Mr. Krishna Prasad Gupta ordered him to supply the vermilliam. Krishna Prasad Gupta supplied him empty packets which was found by the police and there was no involvement of the accused. The I.O. never investigated on the matter that who was Krishna Prasad Gupta and he did not investigate on the point of Gopal Colour and Vermilliiam Factory Lakhisarai. The accused produced the letter of Krishna Prasad Gupta and document of affidavit of Krishna Prasad Gupta in which it has been stated that he was the owner of Gopal Colour and Vermilliam Factory Lakhisarai. The Ld. The accused produced the letter of Krishna Prasad Gupta and document of affidavit of Krishna Prasad Gupta in which it has been stated that he was the owner of Gopal Colour and Vermilliam Factory Lakhisarai. The Ld. court of C.J.M. released the said empty packets in favour of Krishna Kumar Gupta as a genuine owner of this seized articles. If the empty packets belong to Krishna Prasad Gupta, the case comes as a defence of good faith. The accused believed on Krishna Prasad Gupta and became ready to supply him Vermilliam in packets which was supplied to the accused by Krishna Prasad Gupta. The informant has stated that the accused was never found selling or supply the articles containing Trade Mark of the informant in any market. No stockist or retailer or consumer complaint about the business done by the accused. He further stated that the accused has been charged for the offence punishable U/ss. 468, 469, 483, 406, 420, 467 of I.P.C. r/w Sec. 78 of Trade & Merchandise Marks Act 1958. The settle principle of law is that where Special Act is applicable provisions of I.P.C. should not be applied.” 6. The convict who is the petitioner before this Court filed Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2012 which was dismissed holding as under: “19. On the basis of the above discussions of the evidences and the relevant provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, I am of the view that the accused has certainly applied a deceptively similar mark to the packets containing fake vermilion of the accused/appellant herein. The accused has admittedly no registration for repacking. Further that the ld. Court below has rightly observed that the said Krishna Prasad Gupta has never come forward before the court and as such the veracity or otherwise of Ext. A, i.e. the letter dated 02.01.2002 could not be ascertained. As such, I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts against the appellant herein, on the charge u/s 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and as such the learned court below has not erred in convicting the appellant herein by the impugned judgment of conviction, which is sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant herein namely, Punit Kumar Sharma for the offence punishable u/s 78 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 is hereby upheld and does not require any interference by this Court.” 7. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incriminating articles seized from possession of the petitioner were not manufactured by him rather those were supplied to him by Krishna Prasad Gupta for onward transfer. The learned counsel would submit that on the basis of an application filed by Krishna Prasad Gupta the seized articles were released to the petitioner and while so the defence set up by the petitioner must be accepted as true. 8. Section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 reads as under: “78. Penalty for applying false trade marks, trade descriptions, etc. 8. Section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 reads as under: “78. Penalty for applying false trade marks, trade descriptions, etc. Any person who,- (a) falsifies any trade mark; or (b) falsely applies to goods any trade mark; or (c) makes, disposes of, or has in his possession, any die, block, machine, plate or other instrument for the purpose of falsifying, or of being used for falsifying, a trade mark; or (d) applies any false trade description to goods; or (e) applies to any goods to which an indication of the country or place in which they were made or produced or the name and address of the manufacturer or person for whom the goods are manufactured is required to be applied under section 117, a false indication of such country, place, name or address; or (f) tampers with, alters or effaces an indication of origin which has been applied to any goods to which it is required to be applied under section 117; or (g) causes any of the things above mentioned in this section to be done; shall, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both: Provided that where the offence under this section is in relation to goods or any package containing goods which are drugs within the meaning of clause (b) of section 3 of the Drugs Act, 1940 (23 of 1940 .), or" food" as defined in clause (v) of section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954.), the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 9. PW1 who is a seizure witness stated in the Court that he has no knowledge about the articles seized from the accused. However, PW2 who is a neighbour asserted that the accused was doing business as alleged by the prosecution and admitted his signature over the fardbeyan. PW3 who is a member of the raiding party stated in the Court that he saw a machine, powder of red and yellow colours, some packets of vermilion which carried photo of a lady and 'Belpatra' printed over the same. He supported seizure of the aforesaid articles. PW3 who is a member of the raiding party stated in the Court that he saw a machine, powder of red and yellow colours, some packets of vermilion which carried photo of a lady and 'Belpatra' printed over the same. He supported seizure of the aforesaid articles. PW4 is the informant who stated that Punit Kumar Sharma used to manufacture and sell duplicate Sindoor in the market. 10. The informant stated in the Court that he used to manufacture duplicate Sindoor at Sharma Line, Ulidih in name of brand "Bel Patra Chhap". 11. He has deposed in the Court as under: “This Bel Patra Sindoor is registered in name of my firm with the Government of India and I have the copyright. When my representative used to visit market in 2001 then he came to know that duplicate Bel Patra Chhap Sindoor is being manufactured in Tata Nagar and also being sold in the market. My representative Saryu Prasad Singh informed me about it. I informed about it to the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur and contacted to Sakchi Police Station. A raid was conducted by the S.P. in Sharma Line, Ulidih, the establishment of Punit Kumar Sharma on 14th January 2002. Fourteen thousand five hundred packets of Bel Patra Chhap duplicate Sindoor was seized from a packed cartoon. Bel Patra Chhap was written on the label but the name of firm such as "Rang and Sindoor Factory, Lakhi Sarai" was not written on it. Besides this, nine bags of duplicate packets of Sindoor and 2800 Kg red Sindoor in almost ready condition were recovered from that place. A Sindoor making runner machine, a baal machine, and a generator were also recovered. Beside this, the raw materials used in manufacture of Sindoor was also recovered. In this regard, the police recorded my fardbeyan at the place of occurrence which is written by S.I. Binod Kumar Singh. It was written under my dictation and I heard and understand it and put my signature and I identify it. Suresh Kumar Bajpayee and Vijay Kumar also put their signatures as witnesses to which I identify. Binod Kumar Singh read it over and gave a certificate. This is the same fardbeyan to which I identify. It is marked as Exhibit-2. The seizure list of seized material was prepared at the place of occurrence in my presence. Suresh Kumar Bajpayee and Vijay Kumar also put their signatures as witnesses to which I identify. Binod Kumar Singh read it over and gave a certificate. This is the same fardbeyan to which I identify. It is marked as Exhibit-2. The seizure list of seized material was prepared at the place of occurrence in my presence. The seizure list is under the pen and signature of S.I. Binod Kumar Singh and it bears signatures of Kumar Mahesh and Sachhidanand Singh as witnesses. The accused also received his copy and put his signature. This is the same seizure list to which I identify. This is marked as Exhibit-3. The accused manufactured duplicate of my label (Trademark) and its address is written as ‘Gol Rang and Sindoor Factory’, Lakhi Sarai. There is no such Sindoor factory situated in Lakhisarai bearing this name. I am producing herewith a copy of the copyright and registration of my firm Drolia Rang and Sindoor Factory, Lakhisarai, certificate of renewal of registration, cover of original Sindoor packet, warning notice of trademark published in the newspaper, notice published related to duplication and notice regarding my registration published in Trademark Patrika. This is the original cover of Bel Patra Sindoor, I identify it. It is marked as Exhibit-4. This is one of the original pages of Dainik Jagran newspaper dated 17th September 2001 in which a warning about trademark was published. I identify it. It is marked as Exhibit-5. This is one of the original pages of Dainik Jagran newspaper dated 13th February 2002 in which notice regarding the manufacture of duplicate Sindoor was published. I identify it. It is marked as Exhibit-5/1.” 12. A criminal trial proceeds on the basis of the evidences laid before the Court and any interlocutory order passed by the Court would not be a decisive factor to decide culpability or otherwise of the accused. Two Courts have minutely examined the evidences laid by the parties in T.R No. 68 of 2011 and came to a conclusion that the offences as alleged against the petitioner are proved. Now in exercise of the revisional powers the High Court would not enter into minute re-examination of the evidences produced by the parties during the trial [refer, “Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar” (1987) 1 SCC 288]. 13. Now in exercise of the revisional powers the High Court would not enter into minute re-examination of the evidences produced by the parties during the trial [refer, “Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar” (1987) 1 SCC 288]. 13. It is by now well settled that the High Courts have very limited powers under the revisional jurisdiction and such powers can be exercised only in a very limited class of cases in which refusal to interfere would cause miscarriage of justice. 14. In “State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri” (1999) 2 SCC 452 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “5.…. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. …” 15. In “Dev Narayan Haldar v. Anushree halder” (2003) 11 SCC 303 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below is not open to challenge under a revisional jurisdiction and revisional powers can be exercised only where it is shown to the Court that the findings recorded by the Courts below are patently illegal, perverse or absurd. 16. Having held so, this Court finds no merit in the present criminal revision petition and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No.266 of 2015 is dismissed. 17. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through “FAX”. 18. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.