Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1264 of 2004 ----------- Sunil Kumar Sawa, Son of late Madanlal Sawa, Resident of Station Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, P.S. Jugsalai, District-Singhbhum East. …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Shree Dadan Choubey, Assistant Rationing Officer, Jamshedpur District-Singhbhum East. ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : APP ----- 14/25-02-2015 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 67 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. No. 794 of 1997 including the order dated 30.06.1997, passed by Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under sections 420, 120(B), 482, 485, 486, 488, 272, 273 & 277 of the Indian Penal Code, 78 & 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. An FIR was instituted on the allegation that on a secret information having been received on 1.5.1997, the officer incharge of Jugsalai Police Station along with other police personnels and one Shivendra Mohan Kumar, Supply Inspector, Jugsalai Area, came and inspected shop nos. 25 and 26 of Bulu Market, Station Road, Jugsalai and it was found that there was no notice board exhibiting the stock and price of tea. It was further alleged that one Jugal Kishore Sawa, the brother of the petitioner, and his three employees were present but no document with respect to sale and purchase of tea and registration certificate was produced. It was also alleged therein that tea was packed with Brooke Bond Level in 100 gm. packets and the same were being sealed. It was also alleged therein that packets of 100 gm. x 100 gm. of tea of Brooke Bond, Red Level, Taza, Goodriche, Batari Tea were found. No authority for sealing and stitching given by the company could be produced by the accused persons and inspection was also made with respect to the tea kept in 21 bags, which did not smell like tea and some wooden boxes were also found. -2- Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 67 of 1997 was instituted. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted by the police against the accused persons and thereafter vide order dated 30.06.1997, cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 420, 120(b), 482, 485, 486, 488, 272, 273 & 277 of the Indian Penal Code, 78 & 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that arising out of the same incident and with respect to inspection of the premises of shop nos. 25 and 26 of Bulu Market, Station Road, Jugsalai, a separate case under section 75 of the Essential Commodities Act was instituted by the police for violation of Bihar Essential Articles (Price & Display) Control Order, 1977. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case under section 7 of the Bihar Essential Articles (Price & Display) Control Order, 1977 was quashed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 10159 of 1998 (R). It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under sections 78 & 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 is made out in view of the specific provision with respect to section 89 of the said Act as the same relates to filing of a complaint case and not an FIR. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Jugal Kishore Sawa, who is the brother of the petitioner, was the actual owner of the premises in question and with that respect he has referred to various forms and documents issued by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Health Department etc. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since Jugal Kishore Sawa, the brother of the petitioner, was the actual owner of the shops inspected and taking into consideration the said fact, vide order dated 23.10.1997, passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 164 of 1997 (R), the seized tea was ordered to be released interimly. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner concludes that since there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and if the allegations are taken to be true, the same are against Jugal Kishore Saw, who is the actual owner of the shops in question, criminal proceeding against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the present case is altogether a different case with separate allegations for violations of the provisions of Indian Penal Code, Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and the Copyright Act. It has been further -3- submitted that whatever documents are being relied by learned counsel for the petitioner are prior to the actual incident and therefore no reliance can be placed on the said documents. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and after going through the documents, I find that inspection of the premises was made on 1.5.1997 and subsequent thereto, a separate FIR was instituted for the offences punishable under section 7 of the Bihar Essential Articles (Price & Display) Control Order, 1977. The police registered the case also under the provisions of Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, Copyright Act and Indian Penal Code. Section 89 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under section 81, section 82 or section 83 except on complaint in writing made by the Registrar or any officer authorised by him in writing. Therefore a plain reading of section 89 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 reveals that a complaint has to be filed by a person authorised. The FIR has been instituted under sections 78 & 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and since the said section does not fall within section 89 of the Act, as such it cannot be said that for violation of the provisions of Sections 78 & 79 of Trade Merchandise Act, 1958, only a complaint can be filed. In such circumstances, so far violation of provision of the the aforesaid Act is concerned, the police is not precluded from instituting an FIR. Section 63 of the Copyright Act clearly provides that any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the copyright in a work, or any other right conferred by this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years along with fine. Thus, section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 also clearly provides for a person who himself infringes or abets the infringement of violation of the copyright in a work. Even if it is assumed that Jugal Kishore Saw was the actual owner of shop nos. 25 and 26, the same cannot absolve the petitioner from the liability of facing a prosecution under section 63 of the Copyright Act. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to ownership of shop nos. 25 and 26, the premises of which were inspected on 1.5.1997 by the informant, it appears that the documents, which are being relied by learned counsel for the petitioner to highlight the said facts, validity of which, are prior to the date of inspection of the said shops. -4- Moreover, this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not empowered to conduct a roving inquiry or a meticulous examination of the documents in question and the same is best left for the trial court to decide. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find a fit case to cause interference in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all the points highlighted here before the trial court at the appropriate stage. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Rakesh/