2025 Supreme(SC) 1596
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries – Appellant
Versus
Trulines Technologies And Others – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No.2341 of 2020)
Decided on : 18-03-2025
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 380, 381, 405, 408, 120-B; Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 63; Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66, 66
(B), 72, 85 - Allegations of copyright infringement concerning a drawing of a book binding machine. The appellant filed a complaint alleging that the respondents bodily copied the drawing protected by copyright. The High Court directed the Forensic Science Laboratory to examine the machines in question without setting aside the existing report. (Paras 3-8)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - High Court's jurisdiction to reconsider its prior order and compel an investigation while preserving the discretion of the Investigating Officer. The court ruled that the directions regarding obtaining a second opinion were unnecessary and could lead to confusion. The findings of the High Court that did not allow setting aside of the existing report were also considered problematic as they limited the I.O.’s discretion. (Paras 11-15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed copyright infringement by the respondents over a machine drawing. The High Court allowed an application for expert examination regarding alleged copying and later maintained the original report while directing further investigation without dismissing the need for a second opinion.
Findings of Court:
The court stated that the findings directing the I.O. to seek a second opinion could prejudice one of the parties.
Issues: The key issues involved the propriety of the High Court's decisions regarding expert opinions and the implications of maintaining a report while allowing further investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the High Court cannot mandate specific investigative steps that impose limitations on the I.O.'s discretion and that existing findings should not prejudice the investigation's outcome.
Result: Appeal disposed of as indicated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint of copyright infringement filed. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. dispute regarding the expert examination reports. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's concerns on the procedural fairness. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. interference in high court’s directions warranted. (Para 15) |
| 5. appeal disposed with clarifications. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manmohan Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad complaining alleged infringement of appellant's copyright in a drawing of a book binding machine and bodily copied the drawing of the said machine. The complaint has been registered as FIR I-C R. No.12/2018 under Sections 380 , 381, 405, 408, 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860, under Section 63 of the COPYRIGHT ACT 1957 and under Sections 66 , 66(B), 72 and 85 of the Information Technology Act 2000.
4. In the appeal, we are concerned with the steps taken by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to have expert opinion on the allegations of infringement by them. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with the said objective in perspective have filed Special Criminal Application No.649 of 2019 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the prayers read thus:-
'A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition.
B. This Hon 'ble Court may issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction to the investigation officer to get an expert opinion by the Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of the disputed machines and its spare parts to make a comparison with the machines of the complainant alleged to have been copied.
C. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.'
5. The High Court vide order dated 05.02.2019 ordered the application and the operative portion of the order for better appreciation of the grounds urged in the appeal are extracted hereunder:-
4. The aforesaid three machines shall be examined by experts, who is also requiring the presence of one engineer. Let an Engineer from some government recognized institution having sufficient experience and expertise shall be invited by the F.S.L. for examining of the patent who may accompany the F.S.L.
5. Let this examination be done within a period of FOUR WEEKS. The expenses and also cost of examination and remuneration of the expert engineer shall be paid by the petitioner. Once the details are provided, the scientist concern may invite both the sides for the prior visit so that proper arrangement can be made and if one representative is desirous of remaining present from both the sides, they may chose to do so, without causing any kind of interference in the work of scientist and / or in the examination of the machines.'
6. As per Annexure 'P-11', the Committee consisting of the Investigating Officer (for short, 'I.O.'), the Assistant Director- DFS and the expert Mr. Mineshkumar inspected the units as follows and submitted the report dated 21.03.2019:-
Sr. Industries Visited Visit Date
1 M/s. Line O Matic Graphic Industries D/62, Diamond Park, G.I.D.C., Naroda, Opp. Toyota Showroom, Naroda, Ahmedabad 382330, Gujarat, India. 07/03/2019
2 M/s. True Lines Technologies 10, Hitendranagar Audhyogik Vasahat, B/h. Honda Showroom, NH-8, Naroda, Ahmedabad 382340, Gujarat, India. 08/03/2019
3 M/s. Unity Enterprise Plot No.23, G.I.D.C., Vanana, Nr. Toll Booth, Porbandar 360575, Gujarat, India. 12/03/2019
7. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not being satisfied with the examination and the manner of examination again filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1/2019, in the disposed of Special Criminal Application No.649 of 2019 praying for the following reliefs:-
'A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate directions in the present m