Khaza Shakiroddin Javsoddin Inamdar Vs The State of Maharashtra and Another:30.04.2026:Criminal Application No. 77 of 2025, Neutral Citation No. 2026:BHC-AUG:19653-DB:BombHC:, S. G. Chapalgaonkar, H.J.
Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant in a trademark infringement and counterfeit tobacco products matter. The dispute arose after the complainant, a sales manager of a tobacco company manufacturing “Suryachhap Tota”, alleged that duplicate tobacco pouches bearing the company’s brand name were being sold by the applicant at Bhokar, District Nanded.
The prosecution had registered offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 along with Sections 420, 465 and 482 of the Indian Penal Code.
Court observed that the mandatory procedure under Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act had not been followed since the investigation was conducted by a Police Sub Inspector instead of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and no opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks had been obtained prior to search and seizure.
The Court further noted that there was no substantive evidence to show that the applicant had actually sold counterfeit goods or was involved in manufacturing them, and the prosecution case was based merely on statements of company employees. Holding the investigation to be without authority and contrary to the statutory mandate, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR as well as the consequential criminal proceedings.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#TrademarkLaw, #TradeMarksAct, #CounterfeitGoods, #TrademarkInfringement, #BombayHighCourt, #AurangabadBench, #IPR, #IntellectualPropertyLaw, #CriminalLaw, #Section115TradeMarksAct, #TrademarkDispute, #FakeProducts, #IndianJudiciary, #LegalNews, #CourtJudgment, #IPLitigation, #TrademarkEnforcement, #QuashingOfFIR, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
====
Alternative SEO Friendly Titles
Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Trademark Counterfeiting Case for Non-Compliance of Section 115 Trade Marks Act
Illegal Trademark Investigation by Unauthorized Police Officer Leads to Quashing of FIR by Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Clarifies Mandatory Compliance of Section 115 of Trade Marks Act in Counterfeit Goods Cases
Can Trademark FIR Be Quashed for Non-Compliance of Registrar Opinion Requirement? Bombay High Court Answers
Detailed Analysis of 2026 Bombay High Court Judgment on Trademark Counterfeiting Investigation
Bombay High Court on Search and Seizure in Trademark Offences Under Trade Marks Act, 1999
Trademark Counterfeiting Case Quashed Due to Defective Investigation: Bombay High Court Ruling Explained
Bombay High Court Explains Law
Importance of Registrar’s Opinion Under Section 115 of Trade Marks Act: Bombay High Court Judgment Analysis
Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Fake Tobacco Brand Matter
Whether Police Sub Inspector Can Investigate Trademark Counterfeiting Offence?
Introduction:
Bombay High Court clarified that criminal prosecution relating to trademark counterfeiting cannot continue if the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act is not followed. The Court emphasized that investigations relating to offences under Sections 103 to 105 of the Trade Marks Act must strictly comply with statutory safeguards, including investigation by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and obtaining the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks before conducting search and seizure operations.
The judgment in Khaza Shakiroddin Javsoddin Inamdar vs The State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Application No. 77 of 2025, Neutral Citation No. 2026:BHC-AUG:19653-DB, decided on 30 April 2026 by Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar, reiterates that procedural safeguards in intellectual property prosecutions are not mere technical formalities but are mandatory legal requirements intended to prevent misuse of criminal law.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The case arose from allegations concerning counterfeit tobacco products. The complainant, who was working as Sales Manager with V.H. Patil and Company, alleged that duplicate tobacco products bearing the brand name “Suryachhap Tota” were being sold in Bhokar, District Nanded. According to the prosecution story, on 28 November 2021 the complainant received information regarding sale of duplicate products in the market and visited Bhokar along with a distributor of the company named Babulal Agrawal.
The complainant alleged that they found a person selling duplicate tobacco pouches near Sayeednagar area. Upon noticing them, the alleged seller reportedly fled from the spot leaving behind two plastic bags containing tobacco pouches. Thereafter, the complainant and the distributor allegedly took possession of those bags and informed the police. The police subsequently prepared a seizure panchnama at the police station.
An FIR bearing No. 448 of 2021 dated 29 November 2021 was registered at Bhokar Police Station for offences under Sections 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 51 and 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. After investigation, however, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 along with Sections 420, 465 and 482 of the Indian Penal Code.
The applicant approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bhokar.
Dispute Before the Court:
The principal dispute before the Court was whether criminal proceedings under the Trade Marks Act could continue when the investigation had allegedly been conducted in violation of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The applicant argued that the mandatory statutory safeguards contained in Section 115 had been completely ignored. It was submitted that the investigation was carried out by a Police Sub Inspector instead of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as required under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. It was further argued that no opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks had been obtained before conducting the search and seizure process.
The applicant relied upon the Division Bench judgment in Anant Tukaram Teke vs State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2019 All M.R. (Cri.) 1327, and the judgment in Shrenik Shantilal Dhadiwal vs State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2018 (6) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 288. These precedents emphasized mandatory compliance with Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act before initiation of prosecution for trademark offences.
On the other hand, the prosecution contended that apart from offences under the Trade Marks Act, offences under the Indian Penal Code such as cheating and forgery had also been alleged. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the proceedings should not be quashed merely because of defects in compliance under the Trade Marks Act.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:
The court carefully examined Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court reproduced the entire provision and particularly focused upon sub-sections (3) and (4). The Court observed that while offences under Sections 103 to 105 are cognizable, the legislature has imposed special safeguards before police authorities can exercise powers of search and seizure in such cases.
The Court noted that Section 115(4) specifically mandates that the police officer conducting search and seizure must not be below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent. Additionally, before conducting such search and seizure, the officer is required to obtain the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding the facts involved in the alleged offence. The Court treated these requirements as mandatory conditions and not discretionary procedural formalities.
Upon examining the material on record, the Court found that the investigation had admittedly been carried out by a Police Sub Inspector. Furthermore, there was no material whatsoever to show that any opinion of the Registrar had been obtained prior to search and seizure. The Court therefore held that the entire investigation relating to offences under the Trade Marks Act was conducted contrary to the mandatory statutory mandate.
The Court also examined the factual strength of the prosecution case. It noticed that the alleged counterfeit goods were not seized directly from the possession of the accused by the police at the spot. Instead, the complainant and another person had themselves taken possession of the goods and later handed them over to the police station where the panchnama was prepared. The spot panchnama itself did not record any recovery from the spot.
The Court observed that except for statements made by company employees and distributors, there was no independent evidence demonstrating that the applicant was actually selling counterfeit goods or manufacturing duplicate products. The prosecution lacked substantive evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged counterfeit operation.
A major aspect of the judgment was the Court’s reliance upon the earlier judgment in Shrenik Shantilal Dhadiwal vs State of Maharashtra and Others, 2018 (6) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 288. In that case also, the Court had held that investigations conducted by officers below the prescribed rank and without obtaining the Registrar’s opinion were unauthorized and illegal. Court reproduced paragraph 11 of the earlier judgment and held that the same reasoning squarely applied to the present case.
The Court further rejected the argument that IPC offences alone could sustain the prosecution. It observed that the IPC allegations were intrinsically connected with the alleged trademark violations. Since the foundational investigation itself was illegal and there was no independent evidence of cheating, forgery or manufacturing counterfeit goods, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Final Decision of the Court
The Bombay High Court allowed the criminal application and quashed FIR No. 448 of 2021 registered at Bhokar Police Station along with consequential criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokar. The Court held that the investigation conducted by a Police Sub Inspector without obtaining the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks was unauthorized and contrary to Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court also held that there was insufficient material connecting the applicant with the alleged offences.
Point of Law Settled in the Case:
The judgment settles and reiterates an important principle of trademark criminal jurisprudence that compliance with Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is mandatory and not directory. Investigation and search relating to offences under Sections 103 to 105 of the Trade Marks Act must be conducted only by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, and prior opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks must be obtained before search and seizure. Failure to comply with these safeguards may render the investigation illegal and can result in quashing of criminal proceedings.
The judgment also clarifies that merely adding offences under the Indian Penal Code cannot automatically save a defective prosecution if the core allegations arise from trademark infringement and the foundational investigation itself is contrary to law.
Case Title: Khaza Shakiroddin Javsoddin Inamdar vs The State of Maharashtra and Another
Date of Order: 30 April 2026
Case Number: Criminal Application No. 77 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:19653-DB
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Hon’ble Judge: Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar
Disclaimer:Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
SEO Suitable Tags
Trademark Law India, Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 115 Trade Marks Act, Counterfeit Goods Case, Trademark Infringement India, Bombay High Court Judgment, Aurangabad Bench Judgment, Fake Goods Prosecution, Intellectual Property Rights India, Trademark Criminal Case, FIR Quashed Trademark Case, Registrar Opinion Trade Marks Act, Search and Seizure Trademark Law, Criminal Proceedings Quashed, Trademark Counterfeiting Law, Indian IP Law, IP Litigation India, Criminal Trademark Offence, Trademark Enforcement India, Trademark Investigation Procedure, Police Powers Trade Marks Act, Fake Tobacco Products Case, Section 103 Trade Marks Act, Section 104 Trade Marks Act, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote:
Trade Marks Act, 1999,Section 115,Criminal prosecution for trademark counterfeiting,Mandatory requirement of search and seizure by police officer not below rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police ,Mandatory requirement of obtaining opinion of Registrar of Trade Marks before search and seizure ,Investigation conducted by Police Sub Inspector without Registrar’s opinion held illegal, Mere addition of IPC offences insufficient to sustain prosecution where foundational trademark investigation itself defective ,FIR and criminal proceedings quashed by Bombay High Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment