1. Petitioner seeks to revise the orders of the Sub-Magistrate of Rajahmundry in C. C. 1018 and 1019 of 1929, discharging certain accused against whom complaints had been lodged under Sections 482, and 486, I. P.C. Some prosecution witnesses admitted that the accused had been using the alleged false trade-mark for four or five years. Thereupon the Sub-Magistrate ordered discharge finding that under 3. 15, Act 4 of 1889, the prosecution was barred.
2. Section 486, I. P.C., runs:
Whoever sells anything with a counterfeit trade-mark affixed shall unless he proves such and such...be punished.
3. Section 15, Act 4 of 1889, runs:
No prosecution (for an offence against any of the sections of the Penal Code which relate to trade) shall be commenced after the expiration of three years next after the commission of the offence, or one year after the discovery there of....
4. Paragraph 8 of the complaint is to the affect that accused supplied certain buyers with counterfeited Otto Dilkush Ranjan, a scent of which the complainant claims to be proprietor.
5. It is not suggested that these sales were three years prior to the complaint or their discovery one year prior.
6. But the Sub-Magistrate finds that the accused's trade-mark has been in use for five years and they have sold goods under it for that period; and the cases are therefore clearly time barred.
7. The learned Sessions Judge, to whom the matter was referred under Section 435, Civil P. C, reads Section 15 as saying that the starting point for limitation is the termination of three years from the date of the first offence; meaning thereby the first of a series of offences, or, in this case, the first sale of a bottle of this scent. But there is nothing about a series in Section 15, Act 4 nor in Section 486, I. P.C. In fact Section 486 specifically confines the offence to selling a thing, ' goods. or thing. ' The prosecution is within time if launched within three years of the specific offence) complained against.
8. This is the interpretation of the statutes which has prevailed in Calcutta : AIR1928Cal495 , and it is not opposed to the only reported Madras case Ruppoll v. Ponnuswami Tevan  22 Mad. 488. The learned Sessions Judge is in no way bound by unreported cases, and if he cannot agree with them he will be well advised not to criticize them.
9. The petition is allowed and the order of discharge is set aside. The Sub-Magistrate must proceed according to law.