Introduction
The Bombay High Court clarified that criminal prosecution relating to trademark counterfeiting cannot continue if the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act is not followed. The Court emphasised that investigations relating to offences under Sections 103 to 105 of the Trade Marks Act must strictly comply with statutory safeguards, including investigation by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and obtaining the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks before conducting search and seizure operations.
The judgement in Khaza Shakiroddin Javsoddin Inamdar vs The State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Application No. 77 of 2025, Neutral Citation No. 2026:BHC-AUG:19653-DB, decided on 30 April 2026 by Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar, reiterates that procedural safeguards in intellectual property prosecutions are not mere technical formalities but are mandatory legal requirements intended to prevent misuse of criminal law.
Factual and Procedural Background
The case arose from allegations concerning counterfeit tobacco products. The complainant, who was working as sales manager with V.H. Patil and Company, alleged that duplicate tobacco products bearing the brand name “Suryachhap Tota” were being sold in Bhokar, District Nanded. According to the prosecution’s story, on 28 November 2021 the complainant received information regarding the sale of duplicate products in the market and visited Bhokar along with a distributor of the company named Babulal Agrawal.
The complainant alleged that they found a person selling duplicate tobacco pouches near the Sayeednagar area. Upon noticing them, the alleged seller reportedly fled from the spot, leaving behind two plastic bags containing tobacco pouches. Thereafter, the complainant and the distributor allegedly took possession of those bags and informed the police. The police subsequently prepared a seizure panchnama at the police station.
An FIR bearing No. 448 of 2021 dated 29 November 2021 was registered at Bhokar Police Station for offences under Sections 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 51 and 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. After investigation, however, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, along with Sections 420, 465 and 482 of the Indian Penal Code.
The applicant approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bhokar.
Timeline of Events
| Date / Stage | Event |
|---|---|
| 28 November 2021 | The complainant allegedly received information regarding the sale of duplicate tobacco products. |
| 28 November 2021 | A visit was made to the Bhokar market along with distributor Babulal Agrawal. |
| 28 November 2021 | Alleged seizure of tobacco pouches from abandoned plastic bags. |
| 29 November 2021 | FIR No. 448 of 2021 registered at Bhokar Police Station. |
| Post Investigation | A charge sheet was filed under the Trade Marks Act and Indian Penal Code provisions. |
| 30 April 2026 | The Bombay High Court delivered judgement. |
Dispute Before the Court
The principal dispute before the Court was whether criminal proceedings under the Trade Marks Act could continue when the investigation had allegedly been conducted in violation of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Arguments by the Applicant
The applicant argued that the mandatory statutory safeguards contained in Section 115 had been completely ignored. It was submitted that the investigation was carried out by a police sub-inspector instead of an officer not below the rank of deputy superintendent of police as required under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. It was further argued that no opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks had been obtained before conducting the search-and-seizure process.
The applicant relied upon the Division Bench judgement in Anant Tukaram Teke vs State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2019 All M.R. (Cri.) 1327, and the judgement in Shrenik Shantilal Dhadiwal vs State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2018 (6) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 288. These precedents emphasised mandatory compliance with Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act before initiation of prosecution for trademark offences.
Arguments by the Prosecution
On the other hand, the prosecution contended that apart from offences under the Trade Marks Act, offences under the Indian Penal Code, such as cheating and forgery, had also been alleged. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the proceedings should not be quashed merely because of defects in compliance under the Trademarks Act.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether compliance with Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act is mandatory.
- Whether investigation by a police sub-inspector violates Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act.
- Whether failure to obtain the opinion of the Registrar of Trademarks invalidates search and seizure proceedings.
- Whether IPC offences can independently sustain criminal prosecution despite defects under the Trademarks Act.
Important Statutory Provisions
| Provision | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Section 103, Trade Marks Act | Punishment for applying false trademarks. |
| Section 104, Trade Marks Act | Punishment for selling goods with false trademarks. |
| Section 115(4), Trade Marks Act | Requires investigation by officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and prior opinion of Registrar. |
| Section 420, IPC | Offence of cheating. |
| Section 465, IPC | Punishment for forgery. |
| Section 482, IPC | Punishment relating to use of false property marks. |
Significance of the Judgment
- The judgement reinforces mandatory compliance with procedural safeguards under the Trade Marks Act.
- It highlights that statutory requirements in intellectual property prosecutions cannot be treated as mere technicalities.
- The ruling protects individuals against arbitrary criminal prosecution in trademark infringement cases.
- The decision strengthens due process safeguards in trademark counterfeiting investigations.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The court carefully examined Section 115 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court reproduced the entire provision and particularly focused upon sub-sections (3) and (4). The court observed that while offences under Sections 103 to 105 are cognisable, the legislature has imposed special safeguards before police authorities can exercise powers of search and seizure in such cases.
Mandatory Requirements Under Section 115
The court noted that Section 115(4) specifically mandates that the police officer conducting search and seizure must not be below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent. Additionally, before conducting such search and seizure, the officer is required to obtain the opinion of the Registrar of Trademarks regarding the facts involved in the alleged offence. The Court treated these requirements as mandatory conditions and not discretionary procedural formalities.
| Requirement Under Section 115(4) | Court’s Observation |
|---|---|
| Rank of Investigating Officer | Must not be below Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent |
| Registrar’s Opinion | Mandatory prior opinion required before search and seizure |
| Nature of Compliance | Mandatory and not merely procedural |
Investigation Found Contrary to Statutory Mandate
Upon examining the material on record, the Court found that the investigation had admittedly been carried out by a police sub-inspector. Furthermore, there was no material whatsoever to show that any opinion of the registrar had been obtained prior to search and seizure. The court therefore held that the entire investigation relating to offences under the Trade Marks Act was conducted contrary to the mandatory statutory mandate.
Court’s Analysis of the Prosecution Evidence
The Court also examined the factual strength of the prosecution case. It noticed that the alleged counterfeit goods were not seized directly from the possession of the accused by the police at the spot. Instead, the complainant and another person had taken possession of the goods themselves and later handed them over to the police station where the panchnama was prepared. The spot panchnama itself did not record any recovery from the spot.
The Court observed that except for statements made by company employees and distributors, there was no independent evidence demonstrating that the applicant was actually selling counterfeit goods or manufacturing duplicate products. The prosecution lacked substantive evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged counterfeit operation.
Reliance Upon Earlier Judgment
A major aspect of the judgement was the Court’s reliance upon the earlier judgement in Shrenik Shantilal Dhadiwal vs State of Maharashtra and Others, 2018 (6) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 288. In that case also, the Court had held that investigations conducted by officers below the prescribed rank and without obtaining the Registrar’s opinion were unauthorised and illegal. Court reproduced paragraph 11 of the earlier judgement and held that the same reasoning squarely applied to the present case.
IPC Offences Alone Not Sufficient to Sustain Prosecution
The Court further rejected the argument that IPC offences alone could sustain the prosecution. It observed that the IPC allegations were intrinsically connected with the alleged trademark violations. Since the foundational investigation itself was illegal and there was no independent evidence of cheating, forgery or manufacturing counterfeit goods, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Final Decision of the Court
The Bombay High Court allowed the criminal application and quashed FIR No. 448 of 2021 registered at Bhokar Police Station along with consequential criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokar. The Court held that the investigation conducted by a Police Sub-Inspector without obtaining the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks was unauthorised and contrary to Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court also held that there was insufficient material connecting the applicant with the alleged offences.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgement settles and reiterates an important principle of criminal trademark jurisprudence: that compliance with Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is mandatory and not directory. Investigation and search relating to offences under Sections 103 to 105 of the Trade Marks Act must be conducted only by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, and prior opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks must be obtained before search and seizure. Failure to comply with these safeguards may render the investigation illegal and can result in the quashing of criminal proceedings.
- Section 115(4) compliance is mandatory.
- Search and seizure must be conducted by a DSP-rank officer or equivalent.
- The Registrar of Trade Marks’ prior opinion is compulsory.
- Violation of statutory safeguards can invalidate criminal proceedings.
- IPC offences cannot independently sustain prosecution where the core trademark investigation is illegal.
The judgement also clarifies that merely adding offences under the Indian Penal Code cannot automatically save a defective prosecution if the core allegations arise from trademark infringement and the foundational investigation itself is contrary to law.
Case Details
| Case Title | Khaza Shakiroddin Javsoddin Inamdar vs The State of Maharashtra and Another |
|---|---|
| Date of Order | 30 April 2026 |
| Case Number | Criminal Application No. 77 of 2025 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:BHC-AUG:19653-DB |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Bombay |
| Honourable Judge | Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
