Madan Lal Sahu and Another. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.

Madan Lal Sahu and Another. vs State of U.P. and Others.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 01, 2010

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911118

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/911118
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Amar Saran ; Yogesh Chandra Gupta, J.J.
Decided On: Jul 01, 2010
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21817 of 2008.
Subject: Intellectual Property Rights

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein to Release the goods Viz., 91 Units of old and Used Digital Multifunction Print & Copying Machines with Standard Accessories, imported vide Bill of Entry No.787095, dated 21.02.2011, under Free as Second Hand Capital ...

Key legal issue: Intellectual Property Rights
Acts & sections: Copy Right Act, 1957 - Section 63 ; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3, 7 ; Indian Panel Code (IPC) - Section 420 ;

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Madan Lal Sahu and Another.

Advocate Rajiv Gupta ; Dileep Kumar ; Rajrshi Gupta, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others.

Advocate Govt, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Copy Right Act, 1957 - Section 63 ; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3, 7 ; Indian Panel Code (IPC) - Section 420 ;
Cases Referred: Chuttan v. State of U.P.

Excerpt

prayer: petition filed seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to release the goods viz., 91 units of old and used digital multifunction print & copying machines with standard accessories, imported vide bill of entry no.787095, dated 21.02.2011, under free as second hand capital goods in terms of para 2.17 read with definitions under 9.12 of the foreign trade policy 2009-2014 without imposing any restriction in the absence of specific restriction in para 2.17 of foreign trade policy and in para 2.33 of hand book of procedures 2009-2014 and any notification by 3rd respondent.1. we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned aga and perused the record. the arrest of the petitioner was stayed by an interim order passed in this writ petition in respect of case crime no.840 of 2008, under sections 420 ipc and section 63 of copy right act and case crime no.841 of 2008, under sections 3/7 of essential commodities act, ps shahganj, district jaunpur.the investigation had not been stayed. it is not known whether the investigation has been completed yet or not.2. in the case of mahendra lal das v state of bihar: 2002 scc (crl) 110, it has been held by the supreme court that while interference by courts at investigation stage is not called for, the investigating agency cannot be given latitude of protracting the conclusion of the investigation without any limit of time. no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending any longer. accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:1. the investigation will be completed within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order along with a self-attested copy of this writ petition is presented before the investigating officer;2. the petitioner will not be arrested during pendency and for the purpose of investigation, provided a certified copy of this order is presented before the police officer as directed above within 15 days from today;3. two copies of the order shall also be presented within 15 days before the s.s.p/s.p and cjm concerned who shall monitor the investigation as provided by the apex court in sakiri vasu v. state of u.p.: air 2008 sc 907 and ensure that the investigation is completed within the time stipulated by the high court;4. if copies of the order are not presented within the time aforesaid before the investigating officer, s.s.p./ s.p. and cjm, the stay of arrest will not operate;5. the accused will cooperate with the investigation and in case of non- cooperation or otherwise if the investigating.....

Full Judgment

1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA and perused the record. The arrest of the petitioner was stayed by an interim order passed in this writ petition in respect of Case Crime No.840 of 2008, under sections 420 IPC and Section 63 of Copy Right Act and Case crime no.841 of 2008, under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, PS Shahganj, District Jaunpur.The investigation had not been stayed. It is not known whether the investigation has been completed yet or not.

2. In the case of Mahendra Lal Das v State of Bihar: 2002 SCC (Crl) 110, it has been held by the Supreme Court that while interference by courts at investigation stage is not called for, the investigating agency cannot be given latitude of protracting the conclusion of the investigation without any limit of time. No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending any longer. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

1. The investigation will be completed within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order along with a self-attested copy of this writ petition is presented before the investigating officer;

2. The petitioner will not be arrested during pendency and for the purpose of investigation, provided a certified copy of this order is presented before the police officer as directed above within 15 days from today;

3. Two copies of the order shall also be presented within 15 days before the S.S.P/S.P and CJM concerned who shall monitor the investigation as provided by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.: AIR 2008 SC 907 and ensure that the investigation is completed within the time stipulated by the High Court;

4. If copies of the order are not presented within the time aforesaid before the Investigating officer, S.S.P./ S.P. and CJM, the stay of arrest will not operate;

5. The accused will cooperate with the investigation and in case of non- cooperation or otherwise if the investigating officer is of the opinion that for any other valid reason the arrest of accused is necessary during or for the purpose of investigation, it will be open to the investigating officer to apply in this writ petition by means of a miscellaneous giving details of non-cooperation as also details of what kind of cooperation is expected by the accused for completing investigation or why the arrest is otherwise necessary to that interim stay of arrest granted hereby may be vacated;

6. In case the investigation is not completed within the aforesaid time of three months, for some unavoidable reason or due to slackness on the part of the investigating officer the CJM concerned shall inform this Court, with the reason for the delay in concluding the investigation within the time specified above. The Registrar General shall place the information in pending where this Court inter alia is monitoring matters with respect to writ petitions which have been disposed off with directions for completing the investigation in three months.

7. If a report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is decided to be submitted to the Court of Magistrate, in column no. 3 of the prescribed form of the report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. it will be mentioned that the accused have not been arrested on account of the stay order granted by this Court and the Magistrate shall take expeditious steps for appearance/ arrest of the accused;

8. If the accused appears before the Court concerned within 3 weeks of the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and applies for bail, the bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004(57) ALR 290, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.: 2009 (2) Crime 4 (SC), and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh @ Chuttan v. State of U.P. & Others: 2009(65) ACC 781. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Madan Lal Sahu and Another. vs State of U.P. and Others. Same Subject Intellectual Property Rights Same Judge Amar Saran ; Yogesh Chandra Gupta, J.J. Acts & Sections Copy Right Act, 1957 - Section 63 ; Essential Commodities Act...

Intellectual Property Rights