Vishal Sakhla vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The question of guilt is a matter for investigation and trial, not for proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention regarding non-registration of copyright was rejected, citing K.C. Bokadia, which states registration is not a precondition for criminal proceedings. The Court affirmed that an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is cognizable, validating the police's authority to register and investigate the FIR, as per M/S Knit Pro International. Regarding the jurisdiction for Section 33EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Court noted that since the FIR also involves a cognizable offence under the Copyright Act, there is no legal bar on the police to investigate, referencing Ashok Kumar Sharma and Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal were applied, and the Court found no grounds to conclude that the FIR did not disclose any offence or was lodged with mala fide intent. Therefore, the Court found no reason to exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR.

Facts

The petitioners, including Vishal Sakhla and others, sought to quash an FIR registered on 22.05.2023 for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 33EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Petitioner No. 3, Bharat Singh Kushwah, operates an Ayurvedic products business and holds various registrations, including under the GST Act. The petitioners claim the seized products were samples and the seizure was illegal. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint alleging the sale of products deceptively similar to those of M Satyam Pharmacy. The petitioners allege the FIR was a result of malicious prosecution, with illegal search and seizure procedures not followed, and that police lacked jurisdiction to register the FIR under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 33EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, can be invoked against petitioners No. 1 and 2, who are neither manufacturers nor authorized selling agents? (Mixed law and fact, turning on Sections 63 of Copyright Act and 33EEC of Drugs and Cosmetics Act). 2. Whether the search and seizure proceedings were illegal and vitiated due to non-compliance with Sections 22 and 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the lack of signatures from the petitioners? (Mixed law and fact, turning on Sections 22 and 23 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act). 3. Whether the police had jurisdiction to register the FIR under Section 33EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, given the requirement of previous sanction under Section 33M of the Act? (Law, turning on Section 33M of Drugs and Cosmetics Act). 4. Whether the FIR is liable to be quashed on the grounds of malicious prosecution and lack of registered copyright? (Law, turning on principles from State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal). Petitioner's arguments: Offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 33EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are not applicable to petitioners 1 and 2. Search and seizure were illegal, violating Sections 22 and 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Police lacked jurisdiction to register FIR under Section 33EEC due to Section 33M. No registered copyright exists. FIR is a result of malicious prosecution (citing State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal). State's arguments: FIR discloses cognizable offences, including under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, giving police jurisdiction. Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act permits police investigation for cognizable offences under other laws. Procedural lapses and factual controversies are matters for investigation and trial, not Section 482 proceedings. Respondent No. 2's arguments: Registration of copyright is not mandatory for remedies (citing K.C. Bokadia). Offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is cognizable (citing M/S Knit Pro International). No bar on police investigating cognizable offences under other laws (citing Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma).