Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 with allegations that the petitioner was selling fake Zarda (materials produced by tobacco and other materials) by using counterfeited mark/ label of Tulsi zarda produced by M/S Dharampal Satyapal Limited, Noida (U.P). Accordingly, raid was conducted at the shop and godown of the petitioner and certain articles were seized, which all have been mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submitted that though the matter was investigated and charge sheet was submitted by the police, but the sample of seized articles was sent for examination at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna. It is pointed out that by order dated 03.05.2012 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, while releasing the aforesaid seized articles in favour of the petitioner, had directed that the records be placed for taking cognizance only on receipt of the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna. It is contended that after the aforesaid order, the case was adjourned on different dates, but the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna was not received by the learned court below, yet by the impugned order dated 26.06.2012 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in a most mechanical manner, has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 475, 482, 486, 420 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act and the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate for trial and disposal. It is pleaded that in the aforesaid factual matrixes, the impugned order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court, as the learned
