Allowed

Ganesh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2024CRLMP/5876/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur allowed a miscellaneous petition challenging charge sheeting. It quashed the impugned orders, acquitting petitioners as evidence failed to establish essential ingredients for cheating or copyright infringement involving cosmetics.

What did the court decide?

Instant Misc. Petition allowed, impugned orders dated 20.04.2022 and 23.05.2023 quashed and set aside, petitioners acquitted from the charges alleged.

Ganesh Vs State of Rajasthan — Intellectual Property | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:19348]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5876/2023

¶4

Ganesh S/o Ramlal Khatik, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 38, Kasba Sujangarh, District Churu.

¶5

Mahesh Agarwal S/o Om Prakash Agarwal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward No. 39 Kasba Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.

¶6

Irfan Bhati S/o Mo. Sareef Bhati, Aged About 36 Years, R/ o Ward No. 12 Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.

¶7

Suresh Kumar S/o Poosraj Prajapat, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kumharon Ka Mohallah, Kasba Landu, Dist. Nagaur.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶11

Indralal S/o Sh. Pannalal Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Aathwasa, Dist. Sikar. Presently Asi, P.s. Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Pankaj	Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vikram	Sharma,PP

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶15

Order

¶16

14/03/2024

¶17

By way of the filing the instant Misc. Petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned ACJM, Suratgarh, District Churu in Criminal Regular Case No.1025/2021 as well as against the order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.37/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh whereby the prayer for discharge made by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶18

The learned trial Court has directed to frame charge against the petitioner for offence under Sections 420 of the IPC and Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1957’). The Act of 1957 is an act to amend and consolidate the law relating to copyright. This Statute

[2024:RJ-JD:19348]

[CRLMP-5876/2023]

(2 of 4)

is related to infringement and infringement of copyright of a dramatic work, a literally work, an artistic work and musical work. In the interpretation Clause of Section 2 of the Act of 1957, the ordinary meaning of the word used in the Statute has been given. Section 2(m) of the Copyright Act reads as under:-

¶23

Section 2(m) “infringing copy" means,—

¶24

(I) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film;

¶25

(ii) in relation to a cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by any means;

¶26

(iii) in relation to a sound recording, any other recording embodying the same sound recording, made by any means;

¶27

(iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act;

¶28

Section 51 of the Copyright Act makes the provision to show

¶29

as to when copyright is infringed. For ready reference Section 51 is reproduced as under:-

¶30

Section 51: When copyright infringed.

¶31

Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed--

¶32

(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act--

¶33

(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or

[2024:RJ-JD:19348]

[CRLMP-5876/2023]

(3 of 4)

1[(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or]

¶38

(b) when any person--

¶39

(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or

¶40

(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or

¶41

(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or

¶42

(iv) imports 2*** into India, any infringing copies of the work:

¶43

3[Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work for the private and domestic use of the importer.]

¶44

Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an "infringing copy".

¶45

Without rebutting and taking the case of the prosecution as it is, if the police report is seen, the same would reveal that the petitioners are running a shop for sale of cosmetic articles. The telcum powder, foundation, moisturizer cream, lipstick, oil, kajal etc. Seems to have been seized by the police. Nowhere from the Act of 1957, it is reflecting that the cosmetic items do come within the scope and ambit of the copyright Act, 1957.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:19348]

[CRLMP-5876/2023]

As far as the question of invocation of Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, following are the ingredients essential to constitute the offence under this Act, which are as follows:

¶50

(a) the deception of any person;

¶51

(b) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person;

¶52

¶53

(d) making a false representation which is one of the essential ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC.

¶54

There is no whisper or even an iota of evidence to show or suggest that the petitioners have induced any person to believe upon the false representation made by them and under the influence of such inducement, any of the victim, may have deliver the property to the accused and as a consequence of which, loss is caused to the other person and ofcourse there was a dishonest intention for doing so. In absence of the above, no charge under Section 420 of the IPC can ordered to be framed.

¶55

In light of the above, the instant Misc. Petition is allowed. The order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned ACJM, Suratgarh, District Churu in Criminal Regular Case No.1025/2021 as well as the order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.37/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are acquitted from the charges alleged.

¶56

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶57

96-Mamta/-

Ganesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Singh and Ors. Vs State

Ajab Kumar Vs State

Gautam Talesara Vs State of Rajasthan

Firm M/S Avish Agency Vs State of Rajasthan

Khushbu Vs State of Rajasthan