Bombay High Court
Abdul Wahab Jalaluddin Sayed vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 November, 2018
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
Sknair 903-ba-2664-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2664 OF 2018
Abdul Wahab Jalauddin Sayed ... Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2505 OF 2018
Rajesh Tukaram Desai ... Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2847 OF 2018
Ramdas Keshav Rahate ... Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
...
Mr. Rizwan Merchant I/by Mr. Abdul B. Ansari for the applicant in
Bail Application No. 2664 of 2018
Mr. D.S. Manerkar I/by D.S. Manekar & Associates for the
applicant in Bail Application No. 2505 of 2018
Mr. Rajendra Desai a/w Mr. Nikhil Waje I/by Thodur Law
Associates for the applicant in Bail Application No. 2847 of 2018.
Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. R.I. Sayyed, Police Inspector, Property Cell CID, Mumbai is
present.
...
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 29th NOVEMBER, 2018.
P.C.
1. Applicants have preferred these applications for bail under
Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Applicant in Bail
1 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:10:21 :::
Sknair 903-ba-2664-18.odt
Application No. 2664 of 2018 was arrested on 19th May, 2018 and
applicants in Bail Application No. 2505 of 2018 and Bail
Application No. 2847 of 2018 were arrested on 28th May, 2018.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant
is the is the brand protector of Hindustan Unilever Limited. He
received information to the effect that some spurious and
duplicate products are being manufactured by some persons using
the brand name of 'Lakme' 'Ponds' etc of Hindustan Unilever
Limited and sold in the Indian market to consumers. Commercial
suit bearing No. 275/2018 was filed before this Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay alleging that the defendants were manufacturing
cosmetic product inter alia by using their brand names 'Lakme' and
'Ponds' and also their logos. The Commercial Suit No. 275 of 2018
as stated above, notice of motion was preferred for interim relief.
By order dated 5th March, 2018, interim relief was granted. The
Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay was directed to arrange
simultaneous action at defendants premises. The Court receiver
was also directed to seize the impugned goods as well as the book
of accounts of the respective defendants under his seal in the safe
custody of defendants. The Police Officers were directed to
accompany representative of the Court Receiver for execution of
2 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:10:21 :::
Sknair 903-ba-2664-18.odt
the order. Subsequently by virtue of order dated 5 th March, 2018,
the action was initiated by the Court Receiver and certain
documents and books of account were seized and seizure report
was submitted to the Court. The defendants were directed to
appear before the Court. The defendants were directed to appear
before the Court. The Court receiver conducted seizure of goods
and books of account. By order dated 2nd April, 2018 High Court
issued directions in the above suit directing Commissioner of
Police to appoint DCP for examination of case in the light of facts
set out in the order of the High Court and to ascertain whether
prima-facie case for commission of offence is made out. If the
officer so nominated comes to the conclusion that case of
commission of offence is made out, the Criminal Law shall be
forthwith set in motion by registering a First Information Report.
Compliance report was called for by High Court. In pursuant to
that First Information Report was registered on 19th May, 2018
vide CR No. 58 of 2018 with Sewree Police Station for offence
punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian
Penal code and Sections 51, 63 and 65 of Copy Right Act and
Sections 103 and 104 of Trade Mark Act. The investigation was
than conducted by DCB, CDI, vide CR No. 31 of 2018.
3 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:10:21 :::
Sknair 903-ba-2664-18.odt
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai submitted that the applicant in
B.A. No. 2847 of 2018 was doing the work of lamination to earn
his livelihood. The job of cutting, punching and such other routine
work in the field of lamination. There is no evidence to show that
he had knowledge of accused No.1 in the manufacture of duplicate
products of Hindustan Unilever Limited. None of the offence
under Section 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, Section 51, 63
and 65 of Copy Right Act and Section 103 and 104 of Trade Marks
Act are attracted to applicant. There is no material to establish
that applicant has either directly or indirectly made any false
representation and induced anybody to part with possession of any
property to him. There is no evidence to establish charge of
forgery. The lamination work has been done in good faith.
Learned advocate Mr. Merchant appearing in B.A. No. 2664 of
2018 submitted that there is no material / cogent evidence to even
remotely suggest that the applicant have committed any offence.
The dispute is of civil nature. The entire case is based on
documents. The applicant had voluntarily joined the process of
investigation. There is no recovery of any spurious article from the
applicant. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is
no sufficient evidence to show complicity of applicant in the crime.
4 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:10:21 :::
Sknair 903-ba-2664-18.odt
Mr. Manerkar, learned advocate for applicant submitted that
allegedly applicant used to print in his printing press the boxes
which were used to pack Lakme and Ponds. Raj Art was having
required licences and it is proprietary concern of Nitin Tukaram.
Co-accused Kishore gave some job work. He is not involved in
circulation of duplicate products. The contention of the applicants
in Bail Application No. 2505 of 2018 and 2847 of 2018 is that they
were laminator and printer. There is no evidence against them
about conspiracy. At the most they have received the orders of
printing and lamination. Learned counsel for the applicant in Bail
Application No. 2664 of 2018 submitted that maximum
punishment which can be awarded to the Trade Marks Act is upto
three years. There is no evidence to constitute the offence under
Section 467 of Indian Penal Code and no case of forgery is made
out. It is submitted that the required ingredients of Section 467 of
Indian Penal Code is that there has to forgery of valuable security.
There is no evidence of forgery. It is submitted that no goods were
seized at the instance of the applicants. From applicant in B.A. No.
2664 of 218 there is seizure of photograph of Kareena Kapoor, one
challan copy, invoice of Krishna Printers, e-mail copy etc. It is
further submitted that applicants are in custody since May, 2018.
5 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:10:21 :::
Sknair 903-ba-2664-18.odt
Investigation is completed and chargesheet has been filed. Further
detention of the applicants is not necessary.
4. Learned APP vehemently opposed the application for bail. It
is submitted that accused had conspired to commit the said
offence. They were involved in manufacturing, selling the goods
in the branded name of the reputed company i.e Hindustan
Unilever Limited. During the course of investigation, the evidence
is collected against the applicants to show their involvement in the
present crime. It is submitted that the statements of the applicants
were recorded during the inquiry conducted by the Hon'ble High
Court and they could not give proper explanation, hence directions
were issued to the police to initiate enquiry and criminal action. It
is submitted that the statement of the employees of the applicants
in Bail Application No. 2550 of 2018 and Bail Application No.
2847 of 2018 were recorded. Logo of the reputed company was
used which is a valuable security.
5. I have perused the documents. First Information Report was
registered on 19th May, 2018. On completing investigation, the
chargesheet has been filed. It is pertinent to note that initially the
complainant had not resorted to the setting criminal law in motion
and the FIR have been registered in pursuant to the direction
6 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:10:21 :::
Sknair 903-ba-2664-18.odt
issued by the High Court in the Commercial Suit filed by the
complainant. For substantial period of time, the applicants are in
custody. The investigation is completed and the chargesheet has
been filed. As far as the other applicants in B.A No. 2847 of 2018
and B.A. No. 2505 of 2018 are concerned they were printing and
laminating and purportedly conducting the work after the receipt
of the order. Primarily the offence relates to violation of Trade
Mark and Copy Right Act. The offences enumerated under the
provisions of said Act are punishable with maximum imprisonment
of three years. Further detention of the applicants is not
warranted. The investigation is already completed and the
chargesheet has been filed. There are no criminal antecedents
against the applicants. The case is primarily based on documents
which are already in possession of the investigating agency. It is
not the case that duplicate finished products were seized from the
applicants. There is no evidence of manufacturing and distribution
of duplicate products against applicants. Some of the arrested
accused are granted bail. The applications for bail preferred by
applicants were rejected by Sessions Court. Section 51 of Copy
Right Act relates to offence of infringement of Copy Right and
Section 63 deals with other rights conferred by the Act. Section 65
7 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:10:21 :::
Sknair 903-ba-2664-18.odt
deals with possession of plates for purpose of making infringed
copies. Section 103 deals with penalty for application of false
Trade Mark and Section 104 deals with penalty for selling goods
or providing services to which false Trade Mark or false trade
description is applied. The evidence to support charge is prima-
facie lacking. In the circumstances, the case for grant of bail is
made out. Hence, I pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Bail Application No. 2664 of 2018, Criminal Bail Application No. 2505 of 2018 and Criminal Bail Application No. 2847 of 2018 are allowed;
ii. Applicants in Criminal Bail Application No. 2664 of 2018, Criminal Bail Application No. 2505 of 2018 and Criminal Bail Application No. 2847 of 2018 are directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 31/2018 registered with DCB-CID on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount;
iii. Applicants are permitted to furnish cash security of Rs.25,000/- each for a period of four weeks; iv. Applicants shall attend the dates of hearing before the Trial Court, unless exempted by Court;
8 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:10:21 :::
Sknair 903-ba-2664-18.odt
v. Criminal Bail Application No. 2664 of 2018, Criminal Bail
Application No. 2505 of 2018 and Criminal Bail Application No. 2847 of 2018 stand disposed off.
( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) 9 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:10:21 :::