Rajesh Pinjani vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Pinjani, engaged in the trading of engine oil under the name "Sanjana Lubricants," filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. This followed the rejection of his application for the release of seized goods on Supurdnama by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Additional Sessions Judge. The police had registered a crime (Crime No. 24/2022) under Sections 63, 65, and 68 of the Copyrights Act, 1957, alleging that the petitioner sold sub-standard engine oil after affixing logos and stickers of other companies. The police seized reprocessed/refined engine oil, machinery, and other articles from his factory, and sealed the premises. The petitioner claimed to purchase engine oil from the open market, repackage it, and sell it, possessing his own trademarks (Cyclone, Totaline, EDN) and GST registration.

Held

The High Court partially allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders. The Court acknowledged the allegations against the petitioner regarding the violation of copyright laws by affixing logos of other companies on sub-standard engine oil. However, it also considered the petitioner's documentation, including trademark registrations for Cyclone, Totaline, and EDN, E-Way bills, and other purchase bills, which indicated his legitimate business activities. The Court reasoned that while the seizure of containers with other companies' stickers was justified, the petitioner's own branded containers and machinery should be released. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving allegations of copyright infringement through repackaging, the court should balance the need for seizure of infringing goods with the release of legitimate business assets to the petitioner on Supurdnama, provided proper documentation exists. The Court directed that containers with logos/stickers of companies other than Cyclone, Totaline, and EDN be retained under seizure. Other containers and oil packing machinery items were to be handed over to the petitioner on Supurdnama, along with the release of the sealed factory premises, subject to conditions including panchnama, photographs, and personal/security bonds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for the release of seized goods on Supurdnama, considering the allegations under the Copyrights Act, 1957, and the petitioner's documentation of his business operations? The petitioner argued that he purchases engine oil from the open market, repackages it, and sells it under his own trademarks (Cyclone, Totaline, EDN), for which he has trademark registrations and GST registration. He presented E-Way bills and other purchase bills to support his claim. He sought the release of his own branded containers and machinery on Supurdnama, while allowing seizure of containers with other companies' stickers. He relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat and Balkrishna Sharma Vs. State of MP. The State contended that the petitioner prepared and sold sub-standard engine oil by affixing logos of renowned companies, leading to the seizure of large quantities of oil, stickers, and machinery. They argued that the lower courts correctly rejected the Supurdnama application.