MAHENDRA DATTU GORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is circulated seeking urgent relief of de-sealing of the factory premises alleged to have been sealed pursuant to the FIR bearing No.0432 of 2023 registered with Chakan Police Station, District : Pimpari Chinchwad, for the offences punishable under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 103, 104 and 105 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

(2.) Heard Mr. Totla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr. Aniket Nikam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Sec. 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 do not empower the police officer to seal the factory premises. He has pointed out the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and submitted that the police has the authority to seize without warrant the goods, die, block, machine, plate, other instruments or things involved in committing the offence. He would submit that under the provisions of Sec. 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the sealing of the factory premises is not permissible.

(3.) Learned counsel for Respondent No.2"original complainant and learned APP would submit that machinery being huge, it was not possible for the police officer to seize the same as envisaged under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and, as such, to secure the machinery and to ensure that the same is not used in the commission of offence, the factory premises have been sealed. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would further submit that the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class where the seized articles are required to be produced and all objections in that regard can be raised before the Magistrate.