IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
Gudise Srinu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2379 of 2023
Decided On : 05-07-2023
Trade Marks Act - Offences under Sections 420, 272 read with 34 IPC and Sections 103, 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copy Right Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged with offences under Sections 420, 272 read with 34 IPC and Sections 103, 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copy Right Act for manufacturing spurious ghee products.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Inspector of Police conducted the investigation and seized the material without the authorization required under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. The court also concluded that the accusation made against the petitioners did not come within the purview of the Copy Right Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Inspector of Police to conduct the investigation and seize the material, and the applicability of the Copy Right Act to the accusations against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Inspector of Police did not have the authority to conduct the investigation and seize the material under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. Additionally, the court determined that the accusations did not fall within the purview of the Copy Right Act.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioners herein/A3 and A4 seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 315 of 2021 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayayawada.
2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 272 read with 34 IPC and Sections 103, 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copy Right Act.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 13.11.2015, on receiving credible information about manufacturing of spurious Ghee, Inspector of Police along with his staff and mediators proceeded to Bharati Nagar and at about 16.00 hours, when they arrived Plot No. 22, there was a lady aged about 35 years was present there on seeing the police party she tried to skulk away from there, the Inspector of Police stopped her with the assistance of his staff and on questioning her, she revealed her name as Boddu Lakshmi and confessed about her family history and stated that she got acquaintance with one Phani of Teachers Colony who was previously indulged in manufacture of spurious ghee products with dalda, rice bran oil, turmeric powder and original ghee and she is supervising the said activities and making arrangements for dispatch of spurious ghee and she stored packing covers at her house. She further lead the police party to Kanasanapalli road where A3 and A4 were engaged in preparing spurious ghee, who in turn confessed that on the instructions of A1 and A2 they are manufacturing the said products.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in so far as the offence under Trade Marks Act is concerned. The respondent police while conducting seizure has followed the procedure contemplated under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. It is evident from the provision that it is only the Deputy Superintendent of Police who has the power to search and seize as per the provision. In the present case on hand, the Inspector of Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. He further submits that the Trade Marks Act is a self-contained Act and violation under this Act would be punishable only within the provisions of the said Act. When such is the situation, invoking provisions of IPC is not tenable.
5. On the other hand, Sri Sura Venkata Sai Nath, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, too concurred, with the submissions made the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Inspector of Police has no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter and it is only the Deputy Superintendent of Police who is authorized to conduct the investigation and cause seizure and follow the procedure contemplated under the Trade Marks Act.
6. Heard. Perused the record.
7. A perusal of charge sheet goes to shows that on 13.11.2015, on receiving credible information L.W.14 the Inspector of Police along with his staff and mediators rushed to Bharati Nagar, Plot No. 22 and at about 16.00 hours, there was a lady aged 35 years was present there on seeing the police party she tried to skulk away from there, L.W.14 stopped her with the assistance of his staff and on questioning her, she revealed her name as Boddu Lakshmi and confessed about her family history and stated that she got acquaintance with one phani of Teachers Colony who was previously indulged in manufacture of spurious ghee products and with dalda, rice bran oil, turmeric powder and original ghee and she is supervising the said activities and making arrangements for dispatch of spurious ghee and she stored packing covers at her house. She further lead the police party to Kanasanapalli road where A3 and A4 were engaged in preparing spurious ghee, who in turn confessed that on the instructions of A1 and A2 they are manufacturing the said products. After confession, she took LW14 to a room in the southern side, thereafter the Inspector of Police seized the material in the prese
The court established that non-compliance with the Registrar's opinion requirement under the Trade Marks Act is an irregularity that does not invalidate the investigation or proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the search and seizure procedure under the Trade Marks Act must be carried out by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent....
The main legal point established is that charges must be supported by evidence, and the absence of evidence can lead to the quashing of charges.
The court emphasized the need for proper authorization for registering non-cognizable offenses and the requirement to establish the ingredients of the offense under IPC Section 420.
Prima facie evidence based on the nature of the substance and the laboratory report can justify framing charges under the relevant legal provisions.
The court emphasized the mandatory requirement of obtaining the opinion of the Registrar for infringement of Trade Mark before registering an FIR for offenses under sections 103 to 105 of the Trade M....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.