The court ruled the seizure of goods was invalid due to lack of authority and procedural errors, emphasizing protection for perishable items.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed, challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.166 of 2025 in Crime No.3 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukottai and to return 1,350 kg of rice bags to the petitioner seized by the respondent Police.

Factual Matrix:-

2.On 22.01.2025, at about 12:30 p.m., the defacto complainant Sales Manager of Manchukonda Agrotech Private Limited lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner, who trades as M.M.Agro Mills, was selling rice bearing the complainant’s registered trademark and copyrighted packaging. Acting on the complaint, the respondent police registered a FIR in Crime No.3 of 2025 under Sections 51 (b)(i) & 63(a), Copyright Act, 1957 , and seized 1,350 bags of rice. The seized property was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Pudukottai, in R.P.No.4 of 2025. The petitioner claiming to be a bonafide purchaser filed a petition under Section 497 BNSS Act, 2023 , for delivery of the rice. The learned Magistrate dismissed the same, by order dated 19.03.2025, leading to this revision. Submissions:-

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is a middleman who lawfully purchased the rice from suppliers (e.g., Mahendra Rice Traders), as evidenced by invoices and bank receipts. The defacto complainant’s company lacks locus standi and Trademark No. 4109657 is registered in the name of Sri Chakravarti Manchukonda, not the company. No instrument of assignment or power of attorney accompanied the FIR and no mens rea exists. The petitioner neither manufactured nor branded the rice and the supplier invoices show other unregistered brands. The police failed to interrogate suppliers or preserve chain of custody. The entire proceeding is an abuse of process, intended to harass him. Rice being perishable, its prolonged detention in police custody causes irreparable loss.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl) appearing for the respondent submitted that a power of attorney in favour of the defacto complainant was produced before this Court, although not part of the FIR. The petitioner failed to disclose supplier details during investigation and admitted misuse of the mark. Return of goods may facilitate re-offence and thus, release ought to be denied.

5.Heard both sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Point for Consideration :-

(i)Whether the defacto complainant had authority to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of Trademark No. 4109657?

(ii)Whether the seizure complied with the mandates of Section 115 (4)

Trade Marks Act, 1999 ?

(iii)Whether the perishable nature of the property and principles of natural justice warrant interim release of the rice to the petitioner?

Discussion:-

6.1.Authority of Complainant - The FIR record does not show any instrument vesting Manchukonda Agrotech Private Limited with rights under Trademark No.4109657, which remains registered in the name of Sri Chakravarti Manchukonda. In absence of assignment, licence or power of attorney at the time of lodging the FIR, the defacto complainant company’s locus to initiate criminal prosecution is questionable.

6.2.Compliance with Section 115 (4), Trade Marks Act - Section

115(4) mandates that, before seizing goods under the Trade Marks Act, the police shall obtain the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks. No record in the seizure proceedings evidences such mandatory consultation and non-

compliance renders the seizure procedure vitiated by jurisdictional error.

6.3.Perishability and Natural Justice - It is well settled ( Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State