DEOKANT PAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

(2.) By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in case crime no. 658 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Sections 63, 65 Copy Right Act read with Sections 102, 103 Trade Marks Act, P.S. Mugal Sarai, District- Chandauli, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

(3.) As per prosecution case in brief, on 02.12.2019 FIR was lodged by the informant disclosing his identity as Assistant Manager in IIRIS Company making allegation inter-alia that applicant was involved in printing of unauthorized cement bags of various companies like Ultra Cement, Birla Cement, ACC Cement, Jaypee Cement, Prism Cement, Smart Birla etc. and on raiding the factory (Dev Enterprises) in question applicant was found present there, who disclosed his identity as owner of the said factory and on search, huge quantity of duplicate cement bags of aforesaid companies and other materials were recovered from said factory. On the said allegation, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is proprietor of M/s Dev Enterprises and the same has been registered as dealer and allotted 09982406281C as Taxpayer's Identification Number. Placing reliance on form XI issued by Department of Commercial Taxes Government of U.P., it is pointed out that nature of business of the applicant is that of an Exporter, Wholesaler, Retailer and Manufacturer and the description of trade is polythene bags, plastic bags, pouches and closures etc. It is next submitted that the applicant in order to run his business purchased waste and defective bags from various firms/companies i.e. Jai Dayal Hitex Pvt. Limited, Ram Ekbal, Amit Enterprises etc. and after converting them into small satchels, sell them in the market. It is vehemently submitted that applicant has purchased those defective/waste bags with clean hands after paying consideration and corresponding GST upon the said goods. In support of said submission, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on some certificates, e-Way bills and tax invoices of the aforesaid firms/companies. It is also pointed out that there is scheduling agreement between Jaidayal Hitex Private Limited and Ultratech Cement Limited, wherein procedure for disposal of rejected Fabric/bags of bags have been provided in para 1.13.3 appended as Annexure No.3 to the application. It is next submitted that premises of the applicant was searched by the Sub Inspector of the concerned police station and seized the good in violation of mandatory provision enumerated in Section 115(4) and 134 of the Trade Marks Act. It is also submitted that present case is not a case of infringement of any 'Artistic Work' as defined under Sections 2(c) and 2(y) of the Copy Right Act, hence, no case under Section 63 and 65 of The Copy Right Act can be made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that the provisions of Special Enactment override the General Code which in the present case is IPC and Cr.P.C. Thus, the whole prosecution case against the applicant is without jurisdiction and vitiated under law. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence is made out against the applicant as alleged by the prosecution. The applicant is not a man of criminal intent and rather is a good business man. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.12.2019 and the applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.