Seal of the Commissioner of Police would not be an emblem for the purposes of the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
I have also considered the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Section 3 thereof prohibits improper use of certain emblems and names and Section 5 thereof provides punishment for the contravention thereof. The punishment prescribed is of fine which may extend to Rs.500/-. Section 2 of the said Act, makes it clear that "emblem" means any emblem, seal, flag, insignia, coat- of- arms or pictorial representation specified in the Schedule to the Act. The Schedule does not say that the seal of the Commissioner of Police would be an emblem for the purposes of the said Act. But apart from that, what the Act forbids is improper use of an actual emblem. The impression on the invitation does not appear to be of any real emblem, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was improper use of an emblem.
20 Upon reading the FIR and examining the statements recorded during investigation, it is clear that no cognizable offence has been disclosed therefrom. Investigation into the alleged offence therefore, cannot be justified. It would be in the interest of justice to quash the First Information Report and the investigation, that has been carried out on that basis.
Bombay High Court
Sanjay Gupta And Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2012
Bench: A.M. Thipsay
