- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Suraj Govindaraj
- Outcome
- Dismissed
Headnote
Petition under section 482 CrPC to quash the prosecution dismissed. The proviso to section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, requiring a police officer to obtain the Registrar's opinion before search and seizure, is not mandatory; non-compliance is an irregularity which does not vitiate the investigation unless the accused establishes at trial that it occasioned a failure of justice. Where the complaint was registered under section 63 of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act offences came to light only once the seizure was under way, the officer was under no obligation to obtain the opinion at that stage, since the articles could not reach the Registrar without first being seized. Whether the Copyright Act complaint was a device to bypass the proviso is itself a question for trial, on which the complaint could then be dismissed.
Also listed as
- Sri. Manjunatha M.S. v. STATE BY ARISIKERE TOWN POLICE, SRI. K.R. NAGENDRA (CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1620 OF 2017 (482)))
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.