Kasliwal, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is a revision by the accused-petitioners against their conviction under Section 78 and 79 of the Trade Merchandies Marks Act, 1958 sentencing them to undergo one years imprisonment qua each of the two offences and a fine of Rs. 4000/-. In default of payment of fine, each one of them was ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. I need not mention the detailed facts of the case, as the only argument advanced by Mr. Bhargawa, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioners should be given benefit of the provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or under Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In this regard it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offence is alleged to have been committed in January, 1963 They have faced protracted trial. It is also submitted that as early as on July 5, 1962 vide Ex. P/50, it was brought to the notice of the complainant that the petitioners had changed the type of script. It is further submitted that in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 118 of 1974 M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. v. Mohammed Sayeed Khan and Ors. the parties had made compromise on January 30, 1981 and in view of the above compromise the aforesaid appeal was disposed of by this court on February 2, 1931. It is thus submitted that now there is no grievance to the complainant and it is the first offence committed by the petitioners and thus taking into view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners should be granted benefit of probation. The learned Public Prosecutor also frankly and rightly conceded that now in view of a compromise arrived at between the parties the petitioners should be granted benefit of probation.
(3.) I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Indian Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and punishable with maximum two years imprisonment. The offence relates do a period of January, 1963. It is not disputed that is a first offence committed by the petitioners and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties in the civil litigation as mentioned above. Thus, taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I consider it a fit case for the giant of probation of good conduct to the petitioners.;