Mohit Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 9 September, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohit Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 9 September, 2011

Bench: Rajesh Bindal

Criminal Misc.-M No. 17101 of 2011                                            1




           IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
                       AT CHANDIGARH


                                Criminal Misc.-M No. 17101 of 2011(O&M)
                                       Date of Decision: 09.09.2011

Mohit Sharma

                                                                   ...Petitioner
                                     Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                  ..Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal


Present:     Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.


                                 ......
RAJESH BINDAL, J.

While issuing of notice of motion on 31.05.2011, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:

"It is, inter-alia, contended that the petitioner purchased a designing software brand wings experience S.No.50-0040B-3-93 from the complainant-company for a sum of ` 1,32,080/- on 1.7.2009 and is carrying on his own business under the name and style of M/s PS Em- broidery under a valid licence. It is further contended that there was no occasion for the petitioner to intro- duce himself as a partner or proprietor of M/s Konark Enterprises to imitate or infringed any Copy Right of the Firm Wings CAD, India Private Limited when the peti- tioner possesses his own lawfully purchased Embroidery software. It is also contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR which has been got registered against the proprietor as M/s Konark Enterprises."

Criminal Misc.-M No. 17101 of 2011 2

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the pe- titioner is not named in the FIR. It is only on the statement of Vinod Ku- mar, in whose premises the software was being used, that the petitioner has been implicated alleging that the pirated version of the software was in- stalled by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined in- vestigation.

Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. Interim bail granted to the petitioner on 31.05.2011 is made absolute.

The petition stands disposed of.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 09.09.2011 sharmila

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court