IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL) NO.

13395 of 2025 ==========================================================

YAMINBHAI MOHAMMADBHAI GANJA PARTNER OF AJAY STEEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 10/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent – State.

2. This petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS, essentially seeking quashment of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by learned 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Criminal Revision Application No.260/2025 and thereby be pleased to direct the concerned authority to release the muddamal i.e. Rudrax TMT rods, Dyes and Stickers (as mentioned in FIR) which were seized in pursuance of the FIR bearing C.R.No. 11201015250001 of 2025 registered at CID Crime, Rajkot Zone, Rajkot City, for the offence punishable under Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent – State.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having firm namely Ajay Steel, which was entered into Trademark User Agreement with Rudrax company for job work of iron rods of Rudrax Company on 25.01.2025. Pursuant to the complaint filed by the complainant, muddamal TMT rods have been seized under the Copyrights Act as the complainant is HOD of Media and Advertiseing of a company, known as RUDRA Global Infra Products Ltd and the said company is having copyright registration with the respect of iron bars in the name of RUDRA TMT. It is submitted that, the complainant company filed a Trademark Suit before the District Court, Ahmedabad, for infringement and passing off the trademark of the company “Ruda” and various formative marks. During pendnecy of the suit, parties have settled the dispute and entered into settlement deed. Therefore, the complainant has no objection if the muddamal articles are handed over to the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State has opposed this petition and submits that the petitioner is doing job work of TMT bars in the name of Rudrax which was deceptively similar of Rudra TMT. Further, the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the muddamal can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate, still however it was urged that the present petition may not be entertained.

6. Perusing the record, it appears that complaint has been filed at the instance of the complainant under the Copyright Act. Considering the fact that during pendency of the suit filed by the complainant, the parties have entered into amicable settlement and therefore, the muddamal articles require to be returned to the petitioner after following necessary procedure.

7. The attention of the Court was invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein the Apex Court in regard to the valuable articles / muddamals held that no useful purpose would be served to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over and in such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section

451 of the Cr.P.C., at the earliest.

8. Considering the facts of the case, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case (supra), the relevant portion of which reads thus;

“5.Section 451clearly empowers the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as-

(1) for the proper custody pending