Jharkhand High Court
Niraj Kumar Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2809 of 2019
Niraj Kumar Saw ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Nirmal Kr. Das
3. Always Detective Services Company Pvt. Ltd.
having its office at 5 Charu Chandra Avenue,
2nd Floor, Charku Park, Kolkata (West Bengal) ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Rai, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate.
------
13/ 15.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
19.06.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge-F.T.C., Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 130 of 2019,
whereby the petition of the petitioner has been rejected and the order
passed by the learned Trial court dated 11.03.2019, in connection with
Bermo P.S. Case No. 128 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 915 of 2018
has been affirmed by the learned revisional Court.
3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the case is arising out of Trade Mark Act and Copy
Right Act. He submits that dispute is with regard to using the copy right
of M/s Relite Mixture Company in the name of M/s Bhagwati Relite
Mixture Company. He submits that it has been alleged that the premise in
question was sealed on the basis of the allegation that the wrapper of M/s
Bhagwati Relite Mixture Company has been used, whereas the original
company is M/s Relite Mixture Company. Learned senior counsel further
submits that the case is still pending and the petition filed by the
petitioner for unsealing the premise in question has been rejected by order
dated 11.03.2019, and the same has been affirmed by the learned
revisional court by order dated 19.06.2019 passed in Criminal Revision
No. 130 of 2019. Learned senior counsel further submits that the
revisional court has rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioner
has not annexed the documents before the learned court. He submits that
by way of Annexure-2 to the petition, the petitioner has brought on record
the relevant documents. He further submits that in that view of the matter
the learned revisional court may re-examine the matter.
4. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neveda Properties Private Limited
Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2019) 20 SCC 119.
5. Mrs. Rakhi Rani, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos.
2 and 3 submits that the allegations are of using the wrapper of M/s
Relite Mixture Company and the case is still pending and the learned trial
court has rightly rejected the petition of the petitioner.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the learned revisional court has dismissed the petition on the ground
that the documents have not been brought before the learned court and the
petitioner has made a prayer for unsealing of the godown in question.
7. In view of such submission and also considering Annexure-2
of the petition, by which the petitioner has brought on record the relevant
documents with regard to deciding the claim of the petitioner for
unsealing of the premises in question, the order dated 19.06.2019, passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge-F.T.C.,
Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 130 of 2019, is hereby, set aside. The
matter is remitted back to the learned revisional court to take a fresh
decision in accordance with law.
8. The petitioner will be at liberty to brought on record the
relevant documents before the learned revisional court by way of filing
the affidavit, and the learned revisional court will re-examine the matter
and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
9. with the above observation, this petition is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
