Sony Pictures Network India ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 11552 Bom

                                                 1/4                        901-wp-2929-2021+.doc




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2929 OF 2021

Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd.                       ...Petitioner

         Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                             ...Respondents

                               ALONG WITH
                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2874 OF 2021

Sameer Chandran Nair & Anr,.                                ...Petitioners

         Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                             ...Respondents
                                     ...
Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Abhishek
Kumar Singh, Mr. Chaitanya A. Malgaonkar, Mr. Dharmesh Shah, Ms.
Supriya Kak, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Ms. Khushali Padalia i/by. Malegaonkar
Shah & Co. for the petitioner in WP No. 2929/2021.

Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Bhure, Ms. Hemangi
Abhyankar, Ms. Viveka Truman, Mr. Navankur Pathak i/by. Viveka Truman
for Petitioner in WP No. 2874/2021.

Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for State in WP No. 2929/2021.

Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State in WP No. 2874/2021.

Mr. Shekhar Jagtap i/by. J. Shekhar & Co. for Respondent No. 2.
                                      ...

                                        CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                                N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

                                        DATE :     23rd AUGUST, 2021.


Bhagyawant Punde





                                           2/4                         901-wp-2929-2021+.doc




P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Gupte, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2929 of 2021 and Mr. Desai, the learned

Senior Advocate for Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2874 of 2021.

2. Mr. Gupte, the learned Senior Advocate submits that the

provisions of Sub Section 4 of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,

provide for investigation by the officer not below the rank of Deputy

Superintendent of Police or equivalent. However, C.R. No. 171 of 2021 dated

04.07.2021 registered at Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune City for offences

punishable under Section 500 of IPC and Sections 102 and 107 of the Trade

Marks Act, and Sections 66C and 43(b) of the Information Technology Act, is

being investigated by the police inspector. He submits that it is apparent from

the notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. that the aforesaid crime is being

investigated by the officer of inspector rank. He further submits that even the

alleged offence under Section 500 of IPC which is non-cognizable cannot be

investigated by police on the basis of FIR.

3. Mr. Desai, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2874 of 2021 submits that the particular web

series does not come within scope of Trade Marks Act, 1999. He placed

reliance upon the judgment of this Court (Coram: S.S. Shinde & Manish

Bhagyawant Punde

3/4 901-wp-2929-2021+.doc

Pitale, JJ.) in the case of Prateek Chandragupt Goyal Vs. The State of

Maharashtra & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 62 of 2021, decided on 20.04.2021).

4. Mr. Desai, the learned Senior Advocate further submits that no

offence punishable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is made out.

5. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, the learned APP appearing for State in Writ

Petition No. 2929/2021 and Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, the learned APP for

State in Writ Petition No. 2874/2021 submit that they will reflect over the

submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and

grounds taken in the petition and will take instructions.

6. Mr. Jagtap, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 prays for

time, so as to enable him to file reply in both the petitions.

7. Sub Section 4 of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 reads

as under:-

115. Cognizance of certain offences and the powers of police officer for search and seizure- (1) --------

(2) --------

(3) --------

(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

Bhagyawant Punde

4/4 901-wp-2929-2021+.doc

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.

8. We prima facie find force in the submissions of Mr. Gupte, the

learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2929/2021

that the bar for investigation into offences punishable under Trade Marks Act,

1999 by inferior officer may operate in this case and the offence under Section

500 of IPC cannot be investigated by the police.

9. At this stage it is not necessary to elaborate the reasons. Suffice it

to say that the investigation of aforesaid crime cannot be carried out further by

the investigating officer. In that view of the matter, the further investigation in

C.R. No. 171 of 2021 dated 04.07.2021 registered at Sahakar Nagar Police

Station, Pune City for offences punishable under Section 500 of IPC and

Sections 102 and 107 of the Trade Marks Act, and Sections 66C and 43(b) of

the Information Technology Act, shall remain stayed, till the next date.

10. List on 17th September, 2021, through video conferencing.

      ( N. J. JAMADAR, J.)                                        (S. S. SHINDE, J.)

Bhagyawant Punde