This Criminal Revision was preferred by the petitioner under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 CrPC challenging the legality of the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, whereby the charges framed under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 420 IPC by the JMFC, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 5042 of 2013 were set aside and the accused persons were discharged.
The petitioner, Kishore Chhabra, had obtained a patent for an invention titled "Oil Chamber Cleaning Machine" effective from 08.08.2006. He later obtained a copyright registration for the same as a literary work under the title "Rock Engine Oil Chamber Cleaning Machine" on 19.01.2009. An FIR was registered by the petitioner on 17.07.2013 under Crime No. 607/2013 against the respondents, who were allegedly manufacturing similar machines through their firms Speed Engine and Mahalaxmi Engineering. It was alleged that the respondents’ products infringed upon the petitioner’s patent and copyright and were intended to deceive customers, thereby attracting charges under Section 420 IPC and Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
After submission of the final police report, charges were framed by the JMFC. However, during trial, the respondents filed an application under Section 216 CrPC contending that no copyright or patent infringement had occurred, the machines were different, and the subject machine was an unprotectable assembled product. They claimed the copyright was wrongfully obtained and the issue was purely civil in nature. The application was rejected by the trial court.
Subsequently, the respondents filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which on 18.03.2015, allowed their plea, setting aside the trial court’s order and discharging them. The Sessions Judge held that once a design is capable of registration under the Designs Act and has been exploited more than fifty times industrially, copyright protection ceases as per Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. It was also held that no literary work had been filed with the complaint and hence no case under Section 63 was made out.
The petitioner approached the High Court against the Sessions Court’s order, arguing that both patent and copyright registrations existed independently and that the prosecution version did disclose a prima facie case. He further argued that the Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a discharge application indirectly through Section 216 CrPC, despite an earlier rejection under Section 227 CrPC.
The High Court accepted the petitioner’s contentions. It held that the copyright registration being subsequent to the grant of patent was legally sustainable and the factual questions regarding industrial reproduction and design eligibility could only be determined by evidence at trial. It also held that no literary work need be annexed at the stage of complaint to sustain a charge under Section 63. Citing Supreme Court precedent in K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283, the Court emphasized that Section 216 CrPC does not permit backdoor discharge and the Sessions Court’s interference at the charge stage was unwarranted.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, and directed restoration of Criminal Case No. 5042/2013 before the trial court, with further proceedings to continue from where they stood. The respondents were directed to appear before the trial court on 04.08.2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment