Allowed

Sri Ananda Shetty v. the State

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2023CRL.P/1850/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charges and proceedings filed under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, due to failure of prosecution to obtain mandatory sanction from the Central Government as mandated by Section 6 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet and Criminal Case No. 81/2017 along with all subsequent proceedings were quashed and set aside.

Sri Ananda Shetty Vs the State — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23281 CRL.P No. 1850 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1850 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ANANDA SHETTY AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE VENKAPPA SHETTY RESIDING AT NO.5-38-4 SECOND CROSS, CHURCH COMPOUND KULSHEKAR MANGALURU-575 005.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE THROUGH THE POLICE INSPECTOR MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION MANGALURU TALUK REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

DR. KESHAVA SECRETARY GENERAL HUMAN RIGHTS FEDERATION OF INDIA MINERAL HOUSE 3^RD FLOOR, OPP. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HAMPANAKATTA MANGALURU-575 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1, AND SRI M.R. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)

¶15

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:23281 CRL.P No. 1850 of 2017

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE-SHEET FILED BY THE POLICE IN CRIME NO.126/2014 OF MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION, MANGALURU TALUK, WHICH IS NOW REGISTERED AS C.C. NO.81/2017 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.II COURT, MANGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3, 4 & 6 OF EMBLEMS AND NAMES (PREVENTION OF IMPROPER USE) ACT, 1950 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAID CASE.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to quash the charge-sheet filed by the respondent-Police in Crime No.126 of 2014 of Mangaluru North Police Station, Mangaluru, which is now registered as Criminal Case No.81 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court), Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Uses) Act, 1950 (for short, 'Act, 1950') and to quash all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23281 CRL.P No. 1850 of 2017

¶23

Sri P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing

¶24

for the petitioner, submits that the respondent-Police registered an F.I.R., on 21-2-2014, for the offences said to

¶25

have been committed by the petitioner, who is the President of National Federation of Human Rights Council, having its Branch Office at No.11, Dakshina Murthy Industrial Area, Channenahalli, Tavarakere, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru, and the petitioner claims to be the President of the said Organisation at South Canara District. Initially, the case was registered against the

¶26

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, 1950 and under Sections 465, 471 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, in the charge-sheet that was filed on 7-7-2016, it is clearly stated that the charge raised under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are given up and ultimately, the petitioner is proceeded against for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act, 1950.

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23281 CRL.P No. 1850 of 2017

¶28

Learned senior counsel would draw the attention

¶29

of this Court to the relevant provisions contained in the Act, 1950.

¶30

Learned senior counsel submits that Section 3 of

¶31

the Act, 1950, prohibits the improper use of certain emblems and names as specified in the Schedule provided to the Act, 1950. Section 4 of the Act, 1950, prohibits registration of certain companies, etc. which would bear any name or trademark or design which bears any resemblance to the emblem and name contained in the Schedule of the Act, 1950. Section 5 of the Act, 1950, is a penal provision providing for punishment with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. Most importantly, attention of this Court is drawn to Section 6 of the Act, 1950, which provides that no prosecution for any offence punishable under the Act shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of any officer authorised in this behalf by general or special orders of the Central Government.

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23281 CRL.P No. 1850 of 2017

¶33

Learned senior counsel submits that admittedly, the prosecution is launched, after obtaining sanction at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada, as could be seen from the sanction letter dated 2-7-2016 which is placed along with the petition papers. The said document also forms part of the charge-sheet.

¶34

Learned senior counsel would submit that if the petitioner is able to convince this Court that the mandatory requirement as provided under Section 6 of the Act, 1950, is not followed and no sanction is obtained at the hands of the Central Government or any authorised person specially appointed for the said purpose by the Central Government, the petitioner has made out a case for quashing the proceedings. Moreover, it is submitted that admittedly, the offence arising out of the Act, 1950, is a non-cognizable offence and without a complaint at the hands of the aggrieved person or Authority, the jurisdictional Magistrate could not have taken cognizance

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23281 CRL.P No. 1850 of 2017

¶36

of the offence alleged against the petitioner since the same is a non-cognizable offence. In this regard, learned senior counsel submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KESHAV LAL THAKUR v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (1996) 11 SCC 557 has held that if the offence alleged is not congizable offence, the Police could not have registered a case for such an offence under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., when there was no order of the competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. It was, therefore, held that neither the Police could investigate into offence in question, nor submit a report on which the question of taking cognizance would have arisen.

¶37

In the case of DR. R.K. BALASUBRAMANIAM v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI, reported in 2013 (3) MADRAS WEEKLY NOTES (CRIMINAL) 96, it was held, that as mandated in Section 6 of the Act, 1950, no prosecution for any offence punishable under the Act, 1950, could be instituted, except with the previous

¶38

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23281 CRL.P No. 1850 of 2017

¶39

sanction of the Central Government or any Officer authorised in that behalf by general or special order of the Central Government.

¶40

Having regard to the mandate contained in

¶41

Section 6 of the Act, 1950, it was held that sanction obtained at the hands of the Senior Economic Advisor, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, was not the competent Authority, who was empowered to grant sanction under Section 6 of the Act, 1950. It was found that the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi, was the competent Authority for sanctioning prosecution. Learned senior counsel submits that in the present case, admittedly, the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate of Dakshina Kannada, appears to have sanctioned prosecution against the petitioner as pointed out earlier. In that view of the matter, it is contended that this is a fit case for quashing the charge-sheet and all further proceedings, since there is non-compliance of mandatory requirement of obtaining a sanction from the

¶42

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:23281 CRL.P No. 1850 of 2017

¶43

competent authority as provided under Section 6 of the Act, 1950.

¶44

While the learned High Court Government Pleader was asked to clarify the position as to whether the prosecution was launched on obtaining the sanction at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate alone, or any other sanction by the competent Authority in terms of Section 6 of the Act, 1950, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that other than the material available on record, there is no other information available.

¶45

In the admitted facts and circumstances of this case, this Court having found that the sanction was obtained at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada, and the consequential prosecution launched by the respondentPolice against the petitioner will not meet the requirements of the mandatory provisions contained in

¶46

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:23281 CRL.P No. 1850 of 2017

¶47

Section 6 of the Act, 1950. That being the position, the petition succeeds.

¶48

Consequently, the petition is allowed . The charge-sheet filed by the respondent-Police in Crime No.126 of 2014 of Mangaluru North Police Station, Mangaluru, which is now registered as Criminal Case No.81 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court), Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Uses) Act, 1950, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶49

All further proceedings pursuant thereto are also quashed and set aside.

¶50

Ordered accordingly.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

KVK

Sri Ananda Shetty v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ananda Shetty v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh Vs M/S Siddharta Resorts and Foods

Sri B Madhusudan Rao Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Giridhar Vs M/S. Sowparnika Projects and

Sri C B Puneeth Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Zabina Taj Vs the Commissioner

Smt N Hemalatha Vs the State of Karnataka