Cr.M.P v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Outcome
Remanded
the matter was remitted back to the learned Court
Provisions considered
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 s. 115
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. In view of the above, it is admitted position that the officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police is empowered to make investigation and seizure in view of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and in the counter affidavit of the…
- Para 88. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, to allow to continue the proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, S.P.P. ----- ----- 06/08.12.2023 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the State.
This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 09.09.2015 in connection with G.R. No.912 of 2014 arising out of Silli (M) P.S. Case No.19 of 2014, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
Operative part
Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2098 of 2013, which was decided vide order dated 25.03.2015 and the order taking cognizance was quashed as that order was passed filling the blanks in a printed format and the matter was remitted back to the learned Court. He submits that by the impugned order dated 09.09.2015, again cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and the work cognizance has been filled up in blank space. He further submits that in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, any officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police is authorized to make seizure and investigation, whereas, in the present case the Assistant Sub-Inspector has made investigation and seizure and that has been admitted in paragraphs 17 and 22 of the counter affidavit filed by the State. 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2221 of 2015
Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the State submits that earlier on the same point, the order taking cognizance was set aside.
The Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that on the point of passing the order taking cognizance by filling the blanks in printed format, earlier the cognizance order was set aside by this Court. Again the learned Court has passed the order taking cognizance, wherein, the word cognizance has been filled up in blank space. It appears that the same thing has been repeated by the learned Court, which is not accepted.
Further, it appears that in paragraphs 17 and 22 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, it has been admitted that the investigation and seizure was made by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, whereas, in view of Sub- section (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police is authorized to make seizure and investigation. Sub-section (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 speaks as under:
115(4) Any police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, may, if he is satisfied that any of the offences referred to in sub-section (3) has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, search and seize without warrant the goods, die, block, machine, plate, other instruments or things involved in committing the offence, wherever found, and all the articles so seized shall, as soon as practicable, be produced before a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be: Provided that the police officer, before making any search and seizure, shall obtain the opinion of the Registrar on facts involved in the offence relating to trade mark and shall abide by the opinion so obtained.
In view of the above, it is admitted position that the officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police is empowered to make investigation and seizure in view of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and in the counter affidavit of the State, it has been admitted that the Assistant Sub- 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2221 of 2015 Inspector has made the investigation and seizure.
In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, to allow to continue the proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
09.09.2015 in connection with G.R. No.912 of 2014 arising out of Silli (M) P.S. Case No.19 of 2014, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi are quashed.
This petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the matter was remitted back to the learned Court
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Trade Marks Act, 1999 — s. 115.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.