Bombay High Court
Prakash S/O. Sambhaji Nakade vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso ... on 21 August, 2017
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh
cwp658.17 1/5
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.658 OF 2017.
PETITIONER : Prakash Sambhaji Nakade
Age 46 years, Occu: Business,
R/o House No.1261, Gangabai Ghat
Road, Juni Mangalwari, Nagpur.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT : State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.A.M.Jaltare, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.D.Shirpurkar, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel of both the parties.
2. This petition is filed challenging impugned order passed by
learned trial Court in Misc. Criminal Application No.1005 of 2017 and
cwp658.17 2/5
order passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application
No.130 of 2017, whereby prayer made by petitioner for release of
muddemal i.e. machineries seized in Crime No.14 of 2017 registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
472, 474 of the Indian Penal Code read Sections 63, 64 of the
Copyright Act, 1957, came to be rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
complaint was filed about printing of certain books of complainant's
publication and its sale from the house near Ganpati Temple in
Nababpura, Nagpur. On the basis of said complaint, on visiting the
spot, police found books worth Rs.35,92,650/- in the house of co-
accused Rajesh Lanjewar where from they came to be seized.
According to the case of petitioner, he came to be arrested and printing
materials of petitioner used for the purpose of his printing business
came to be seized which consist of Double Colour Machine, Offset
Machine along with Cutting Machine, Exposure Machine, 26 reams of
papers, as detailed in para no.5 of the petition. It is the specific case of
petitioner that he was running a business of printing after obtaining
necessary permissions and has also purchased said machines, and to
establish ownership thereof has annexed to the petition bills issued in
cwp658.17 3/5
his name thereby establishing purchase of said machines by him.
4. From the case it is noted that as the machineries were found
to be heavy, on effecting seizure thereof, premises came to be seized
and thus, petitioner is unable to carry on his business and as such is put
to hardship.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring the provision
of Section 64(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 has urged that under the
provision of said Section, only plates used for the purpose of printing
material are liable for its seizure and no machineries can be seized.
Perusal of provision as aforesaid substantiates the case put forth on
behalf of petitioner. In fact, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on
obtaining instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is present in
the Court, has made a statement that no plates are seized from the
accused as nothing incriminating was found therein. In view of
admitted fact of seizure of machineries, prima facie, it appears that act
of seizure of such machineries is not in consonance with the provision
of Section 64(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Even otherwise, it is
pointed out that, in a reply submitted by prosecution before the Court
of learned Magistrate to an application filed for grant of permission to
cwp658.17 4/5
release the seized muddemal on Supratnama, Investigating Officer had
not seriously objected for the release of same, contending that there
was no necessity of machineries seized in this crime for the purpose of
investigation and had therefore, further contended that by imposing
suitable conditions necessary orders be passed with regards to return of
machineries on Supratnama.
6. Having considered facts involved as aforesaid, provision of
Section 64(1) of the Copyright Act and from the document Annexure II
filed in the petition, it is established that petitioner is owner of the
machineries involved in the present crime. So also, from the
registration Certificate and Shop Establishment Certificate it is found
that petitioner with the use of said machineries was carrying on
printing business. In such circumstances, petition is liable to be
allowed as per following order.
-ORDER-
(i) Impugned orders dated 6th April, 2017 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Nagpur and order dated 5th July,
2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur are quashed
and set aside.
(ii) All the machineries which are described in para no.5
cwp658.17 5/5
of the petition and are seized under the panchanama in Crime No.14 of
2017 registered with Police Station Kotwali Nagpur shall be returned to
petitioner on Supratnama on the conditions that petitioner shall not
dispose of same or create any third party interest in respect of said
machineries, pending trial. Needless to say that petitioner shall
produce the same if required during the course of trial.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
chute
