IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 1^st OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55773 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

VIVEK SEN S/O RAKESH SEN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O NARGUDA DARWAJA TIKAMGARH P.S. KOTWALI DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SATYAM AGRWAL - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. KOTWALI DISTRICT NASRULLAGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SWATI ASEEM GEORGE – DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This application under Article 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the rejection of application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for grant of interim custody of various articles, which were seized on allegation of violation of Copy Right.

2. According to the prosecution case, on a report, a crime has been registered against the applicant and accordingly RCT No.968/2020 is pending against the applicant.

3. The applicant filed an application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the articles, which were seized on the allegation of violation of copy right. However, by order dated 11.03.2022 passed by JMFC, Tikamgarh in RCT No.968/2020, the said application was rejected.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred a revision, which too has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Revision No.113/2022.

5. It is fairly conceded by counsel for applicant that applicant has not filed copy of application filed under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. even copy of order dated 11.03.2022 passed by JMFC, Tikamgarh has not been filed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. From the FIR, which has been filed as Annexure P/1, it is clear that Crime No.831/2020 has been registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Tikamgarh for offence under Sections 481, 482, 483, 486, 487, 488, 489 and 420 of IPC and under Section 51(A), 52(A), 63, 65, 68(A) of Copy Right Act and Section 103 and 104 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

8. It appears that accordingly during the investigation, multiple articles, which were allegedly in violation of the aforesaid Acts were seized. Thus, it is clear that the articles, which were seized by the police form the very basis for prosecution.

9. It is the case of the applicant that those articles were purchased by him from the authorized dealer.

10. The tax invoices, which has been placed by the applicant are private documents, which are required to be proved by leading primary evidence. This Court by relying upon the tax invoices cannot give a finding that the articles, which were seized from the applicant, were not be spurious or duplicate articles. Since, the articles, which have been seized form the very basis for prosecution, therefore the Courts below did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.

11. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed (G.S. AHLUWALIA)

JUDGE VB*

V 2 0IN 2 A 4.Y 0

3K .U 04M 1A 0R :

5B 3U :1R 6M +A 0N

5 '30'