JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the FIR No.10 dated 01.02.2019 under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in the original FIR, offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act,1957 were there. However, at the time of the filing of the challan, the said offences were deleted and changed to Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999), Police Station Mahilppur, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab (Annexure P-1), order dated 01.02.2021 whereby the charges were framed by the Court of JMIC, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-4) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts as emanating from pleadings are that one Vishal Joshi, Enforcement Officer, son of Ram Parkash Joshi, United Overseas Trade Mark Company 52, Sukhdev Vihar, Mathura Road, New Delhi, submitted an application to the Incharge Police Post Saila Khurd, Hoshiarpur, regarding manufacturing of duplicate bags etc. and selling the same in the name of their authorized company 'North Face' and 'Jansport'. It was stated in the complaint that he was posted as Enforcement Officer in the said company. On 01.02.2019, he had conducted a survey of Saila Khurd Market and had come to know that Ashok Kumar son of Purshotam Lal, owner of Amar Bag House was indulging in manufacturing, selling and supplying duplicate bags, etc. in the name of their authorized company 'North Face' and 'Jansport'. If a raid was conducted, a huge quantity of duplicate products could be recovered. Legal action was sought.

Based on the application, FIR No.10 dated 01.02.2019 under Sections 63, 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. A copy of the aforesaid FIR is attached to the petition as Annexure P-1.

3. During investigation, the police of Police Station Mahilpur raided the shop of the petitioner and apprehended him. The search of the shop was conducted and 15 packets of bags each containing 04 pieces totalling 60 pieces, black in colour with the Mark 'North Face' were recovered from the shelf of the shop. Similarly, 19 packets of bags, colour black, each containing 04 pieces, totalling 76 bags Mark 'Jansport' were recovered. The marks on the recovered bags were checked by the complainant at the spot and the test report was obtaining. All the bags were purportedly fake. They were taken into the police possession vide separate memos of recovery. A wooden board bearing the company's sticker having the mark 'Jansport' was also recovered.

4. After the completion of the investigation, the report under Section173(2) Cr.P.C. was initially prepared under Sections 63,65 of the Copyright Act and the same was sent for the checking to the office of the District Attorney, Hoshiarpur, who gave an opinion that offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act') were made out and the offence under Sections 63,65 of the Copyright Act,1957 was deleted. Thereafter, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented under Sections 103 and104 of the Act. A copy of the said report is attached to the petition as Annexure (P-2).

Based on the afore-mentioned report, charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 103 and 104 of the Act. A copy of the order dated 01.02.2021 is attached as Annexure P-4 to the petition.

The present petition came to be filed challenging the FIR (Annexure P-1) the order framing charges (Annexure P-4) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

5. The primary contention raised in the petition is that under Section 115(4) of the Act, only a police officer above/equal to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police could conduct the search and seizure without warrant and secondly, the police officer concerned was required to obtain the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks prior to the Deputy Superintendent of Police making any search or seizure. It was c