The main legal point established in the judgment is that seized goods may be released under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if they are not required for the trial and are subject to civil litigation.

( 1 ) THE order that gave rise to this Criminal Petition is the order dated 19-1-1984 passed by the I additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in P. C. R. No. 115 of 1983 on an application. A-I filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the seized goods worth about Rs. 4,88,965/- by the Koramangala Police on 18-11-1983 during the course of the investigation of the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent.

( 2 ) I shall refer to the parties in the course of this order as they stood in relation to the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent.

( 3 ) TO proceed further, it is relevant to refer to a few facts leading up to the filing of this petition.

( 4 ) THE complainant Associated Electronic and Electrical Industries (Bangalore) Private Limited represented by its General Manager Sri G. Ramesh has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Silver Audio System Private Limited represented by its Director Sri M. B. Thakur and three others for offences under Sections 76, 77, 78, 79 and 85 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and for certain offences under the Indian Penal Code including Section 420. P. C. According to the complainant, the complainant is a private limited company incorporated under the companies Act and it has got "sharp" as one of its registered trade marks. The complainant is dealing in electronic goods making use of the said registered trade mark. The complainant has alleged that the 1st accused (the petitioner herein) got published an advertisement on page 3 of the Indian Express in one of its issues for the month of October, 1983 most prominently displaying the marks 'sharp quart clocks' causing confusion and deception not only to the public and trade but also to the complainant company causing enormous and irreparable damage and to its valuable reputation and proprietorship. It is further alleged that all the accused aided and abetted in causing unfair trading and violating the complainant's renowned and reputed trade marks and Copyright and other rights in common law and torts which all attract penal provisions jointly and severally. On these allegations, among other things, the complainant filed the private complaint in question before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.

( 5 ) THE Learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, having felt that the complaint was needed to be investigated by the police, referred the complaint to the S. H. O. , Koramangala police Station under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation with a direction to search and seize incriminating articles. Pursuant thereto the Sub-Inspector of Police, law and Order, Koramangala Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 425/83 on 18-11-1983 and in the course of the investigation, searched the factory premises of the 1st accused in Koramangala and seized the goods from the custody and possession of the 1st accused and reported the seizure to the Court as required under the provisions of the Code of criminal Procedure. The private complaint of the complainant was treated as P. C. R. 115/83 on the file of the Learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

( 6 ) WHILE the complaint was being investigated by the police, on seizure of the goods from the possession of the 1st accused, the 1st accused filed an application. A-1 under Section 457 of the code of Criminal Procedure for release of the seized goods in his favour. That application was seriously resisted by the complainant. During the pendency of the application. A-1 for disposal, the police, after investigating the case, submitted a 'b' report stating that the complaint was a mistake of fact and as such no criminal offence was made out. The complainant has chosen to challenge the 'b' report and sought leave of the Court to prove his compl