Madras High Court: In a criminal revision case filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’), 2023, the accused had prayed for a direction to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pudukottai, and to set aside the same. The accused had also sought an order directing the return of 1,350 kg of rice bags seized by the police. The matter was heard and disposed of by the Single Judge Bench of L. Victoria Gowri,J. Without delving into the merits of the alleged trade mark or copyright infringement, the Court found that the impugned order was liable to be set aside, on the grounds of procedural irregularity in seizure and the risk of undue prejudice to the accused.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Court directed that the 1,350 bags of rice be released to the accused in interim custody, subject to certain conditions prescribed to safeguard the ongoing investigation and trial.
Background
On 22-01-2025, the complainant, who was the Sales Manager of Manchukonda Agrotech Private Limited, lodged a complaint alleging that the accused, trading under the name M.M. Agro Mills, had been selling rice using the complainant’s registered trade mark and copyrighted packaging without authorization. Acting upon the complaint, the police registered a First Information Report (‘FIR’) for offences under Sections 51(b)(i) and 63(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and seized 1,350 bags of rice.
The seized goods were produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court. The accused, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, filed a petition under Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking the return of the seized rice. However, the Magistrate dismissed the petition, which led to the filing of the present criminal revision case.
Issues
- Whether the complainant had authority to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of Trade Mark No. 4109657?
- Whether the seizure complied with the mandates of Section 115(4) Trade Marks Act, 1999?
-
Whether the perishable nature of the property and principles of natural justice warrant interim release of the rice to the accused?
Analysis and Decision
Authority of the Complainant:
The Court noted that the FIR records did not disclose any instrument vesting Manchukonda Agrotech Private Limited with rights under Trade Mark No. 4109657, which remained registered in the name of Sri Chakravarti Manchukonda. In the absence of an assignment, licence, or power of attorney at the time of lodging the FIR, the complainant company’s locus standi to initiate criminal prosecution was deemed questionable.
Non-Compliance with Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
The Court observed that Section 115(4) mandates the police to obtain the Registrar’s opinion before conducting a seizure under the Trade Marks Act. However, there was no record evidencing such mandatory consultation. The failure to comply with this statutory requirement vitiated the seizure proceedings and amounted to a jurisdictional error.
Perishability and Principles of Natural Justice:
The Court reiterated the legal position laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290 , wherein it is held that, in the case of seizure of perishable goods, courts must act to prevent deterioration and economic loss by directing interim release with safeguards. In the present case, the rice had remained in police custody since January 2025, raising concerns of spoilage and financial prejudice to the accused, who had made a prima facie claim of bona fide possession.
In view of the above findings, and without entering into the merits of the alleged trade mark or copyright infringement, the Court held that the impugned order dated 25-03-2025 was liable to be set aside, owing to defective seizure proceedings and the risk of undue prejudice to the accused.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Court directed that 1,350 bags of rice be released to the accused in interim custody, subject to the following conditions:
- The accused shall execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- , with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pudukkottai District.
- The accused shall remove only the rice (contents) from the seized sacks and return the empty bags to the Trial Court.
- The accused shall produce two rice bags of each variety as samples before the Magistrate for the purpose of investigation and trial.
-
The accused shall video-record the removal of rice from the sacks and prepare a certified CD/CD-ROM in compliance with Section 63(4)(c) of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, (‘BSA’) 2023, and furnish the same to the Magistrate within two days of taking interim delivery.
[Veerasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.R.C.(MD)No.465 of 2025, decided on 10-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Bageerathan
For Respondent: Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.)
Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999 HERE
