SRI. VISHAL VRUSHABHANATH SAMAJE v. MEDICAL ACADEMY

SRI. DINESH M, S/O MUNINATH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.285D, 191/1, H.D.HALLI, GOTTIGERE POST, B.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 083. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.22293/2025 ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CRIME NO.88/2025 REGISTERED AT UPPARPET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR OFFENCE U/S 51(1) (b), 63 AND 65 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957, WHICH IS ON THE FILE OF IX ACJM BANGALORE AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37262 CRL.P No. 9513 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010443562026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sadappa V. Naikar, appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "A. Allow the petition and quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings in C.C. No. 22293/2025 arising out of FIR in Crime No. 88/2025 registered at Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences under Sections 51(1)(b), 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which is on the file of IX A.C.J.M. Bangalore and all further proceedings pursuant thereto insofar as the petitioners is concerned; B. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. "

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.2080/2023 disposed on

19.06.2024, wherein it has held as follows: HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37262 CRL.P No. 9513 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010443562026 "The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.21775 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 53, 61 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri S A Sudhindra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that a co-ordinate bench of this Court, in identical circumstances, in Crl.P.No.6096 of 2016 disposed on 28-02-2019 has precisely answered the issue inter alia, that without obtaining prior permission as obtaining under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 if the complaint is registered, it would become an act contrary to law. The co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: “…. …. ….

2. Petitioner has sought to quash the FIR in the offences registered Crime No.148/2015 punishable under Sections 51(1), 51(b) and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the consequent charge sheet in C.C.No.15917/2016.

3. Learned counsel appearing petitioner would submit that the allegations made in the complaint and in the charge sheet would make out the offences only under sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and not under the provisions of Copyright Act,1957. Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act empowers a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police of equivalent rank, the power to search and seizure without any warrant, the goods, dye, block, machine, plate, other instruments or things involved in committing offences. In the instant case, search and seizure was carried out by the Inspector of Police, CCB (F & M), contrary to the prescription contained in Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act. Therefore, the procedure followed by the Respondent – police being opposed to the provisions of the Trade HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37262 CRL.P No. 9513 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010443562026 Marks Act, the impugned proceedings are bad in law and are liable to be quashed.

He further submits that the material collected by the Investigating agency does not make out any of the offences under Sections 51(1), 51(b) and 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Therefore, on this ground also, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

appearing Learned SPP-II Respondent-State does not dispute the fact that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not satisfy the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 51(1), 51(b) and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and that the offences made out in the charge sheet fall under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act.

In order to appreciate this controversy, it is pertinent to note that the substance of accusations against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein was found in possession of 900 shirts, 200 pants, 30 T-shirts bearing the label of Allen Solly, 20 shirts of Van Heusen, 40 shirts of Peter England and 30 shirts of Louis Philippe Brand. Specific allegation against the petitioner is that he was indulging in the sale of the said counterfeit goods and thereby caused a loss of Rs.13,50,000/-to the above companies.

Charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 51(1), 51(b) and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. As per Section 13(1) of the Copyright Act, Copyright could be claimed only on the following classes of works namely; (a) (b) (c) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; cinematograph films; and sound recording. Sub-section (2) of section 13 of Copyright Act provides that, “Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in sub-section (1), other than a work to which the provisions of Section 40 or section 41 apply, unless.-

(i) in the case of a published work, the work is first published in India, or where the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date of such publication, or in a case where the author was HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37262 CRL.P No. 9513 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010443562026 dead at that date, was at the time of his death, a citizen of India; (ii) in the case of an unpublished work other than [work of architecture], the author is at the date of the making of the work a citizen of India or domiciled in India; and (iii) in the case of [work of architecture], the work is located in India

.

in his possession or It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is claiming any copyright in the goods that he has been manufacturing shirts or pants containing the Brand names Allen Solly, Van Heusen or Louis Philippe. The specific case of the prosecution is that he was found selling counterfeit goods containing the labels of different brands. These facts do not amount to infringement of copyrights within the meaning of Copyright Act, 1957. From the facts averred in the FIR, the petitioner is seen to have committed the offences punishable under section 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and not under sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 as alleged in the FIR.

Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for penalty for selling goods bearing trade marks. Section reads as under:-

104. Penalty for selling goods or providing services to which false trade mark or false trade description is applied. — Any person who sells, lets for hire or exposes for sale, or hires or has in his possession for sale, goods or things, or provides or hires services, to which any false trade mark or false trade description is applied or which, being required under section 139 to have applied to them an indication of the country or place in which they were made or produced or the name and address of the manufacturer, or person for whom the goods are manufactured or services provided, as the case may be, are without the indications so required, shall, unless he proves,— having (a) that, reasonable precautions against committing an offence against this section, he had at the time of commission of the alleged offence no reason to suspect the genuineness of the trade mark or trade description or that any offence had been committed in respect of the goods or services; or (b) that, on demand by or on behalf of the prosecutor, he gave all the information in his power HC-KAR - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:37262 CRL.P No. 9513 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010443562026 with respect to the person from whom he obtained such goods or things or services; or (c) that otherwise he had acted innocently, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees

.

Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for the procedure for taking cognizance of the offences committed in relation to the trade marks. Sub- sections (3) and (4) of section 115 which are relevant for our purpose read as under:-

Cognizance of certain offences and the powers of police officer for search and seizure.— … (3) The offences under section 103 or section 104 or section 105 shall be cognizable. (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, dye, 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. From the above provision it is clear that only the police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, if he is satisfied that an offence under sections HC-KAR - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:37262 CRL.P No. 9513 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010443562026 103 or 104 or 105 has been committed or is likely to be committed, he may search and seize goods, dye, block, machine, plate etc., without warrant. In the instant case, the search and seizure has been conducted by the Sub-Inspector or Police contrary to the mandate. Thus the mandatory provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 have not been complied with. Therefore, registration of the FIR and consequent investigation thereon is vitiated.