Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Mr. Tapesh Pal, filed a criminal revision petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him, including the charge sheet arising out of Amherst Street Police Station Case No. 311 dated 11.11.2019. The case was registered under Sections 420/120B of the IPC and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The case stemmed from a complaint by Aman Preet, who alleged that counterfeit and infringing sports goods under the brands "SG" and "Nivia" were being sold by unauthorized dealers. During a raid, counterfeit products were recovered from a shop where Mr. Tapesh Pal was present.
Procedural Background (in brief):
Following the complaint, an FIR was registered against unknown accused persons. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Mr. Tapesh Pal under Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against him. The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, arguing that he was not the shop owner and that the complaint was procedurally defective as it was filed in the complainant's individual capacity instead of by the authorized company.
Judgments referred in case with complete citation and context:
The petitioner relied on Mehmood Ul Rehman and Ors. v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Ors., (2015) 12 SCC 420, to argue that cognizance should not be taken mechanically and should be based on the Magistrate's application of mind to the complaint and material on record. The petitioner also cited Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 536, to assert that delegation of power to lodge a complaint must follow legal formalities and cannot be loosely interpreted. Another case referred to was A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Ors., AIR 1984 SC 718, where the Court emphasized that statutory requirements must be strictly followed. The petitioner also relied on The State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, to argue that criminal proceedings can be quashed if they amount to an abuse of process. Further, Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641, was cited regarding the limited and cautious application of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. In response, the opposite party referred to Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Jain, 2023 (3) SCALE 18, to submit that sub-delegation by a power of attorney holder is valid if permitted by specific authorization.
Reasoning of Court:
The Court found that counterfeit goods bearing "SG" and "Nivia" marks were recovered from the shop where the petitioner was present. The petitioner had failed to provide valid documentation or explanation regarding the possession of the counterfeit goods, nor could he establish through evidence that he was not responsible for managing the shop. The Court also noted that authorizations and documents regarding the delegation of power raised disputed facts that could only be determined during trial. The Court held that the petitioner’s contentions regarding the lack of proper complaint procedure and lack of his liability required factual adjudication through evidence, which could not be resolved at this stage. Further, the Investigating Officer’s findings and the seizure of infringing goods established a prima facie case under Section 63 of the Copyright Act against the petitioner.
Decision:
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revisional application, holding that there was no abuse of process and that the matter should proceed to trial. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's innocence or involvement should be determined after evidence is led during trial.
Case Title: Mr. Tapesh Pal vs The State of West Bengal & Another
Date of Order: 12th March 2025
Case Number: CRR 2057 of 2021
Neutral Citation: Not specified in the document
Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta, Appellate Side
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
