Madras High Court Quashes Final Report As No Ingredients Of Sec. 420 IPC Are Found Against Applicant

Recently, Hon’ble Madras High Court allowed the criminal petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the final report containing the charges U/s 63 of Copyright Act,1957 and Sec. 420 IPC by holding therein that “the possession of spurious goods is certainly not a legal act. However, in the absence of the ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating, one cannot be prosecuted merely because he was in possession of spurious goods. In order to constitute the offence of 420 IPC, there must be a deception practised on any person dishonestly or fraudulently”.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

It is alleged in the final report that the petitioners were found in possession of counterfeit Adidas/Reebok ready-made Garments, Tags, Accessories and Labels; thus, they committed the aforesaid offences.

CONTENTION OF APPLICANT

the learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is not made out on the allegation; that the Copyright is applicable only to the works mentioned in Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957; that it does not apply to the Garments and other products which are mentioned in the impugned final report; and that there is no complaint from any person or consumer that they have been cheated by the purchase of any of the goods sold by the petitioners, and in the absence of such an allegation, the offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. He relied upon the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kasim Ali vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh dated 13.06.2016 in Misc. Criminal Case No.1362 of 2015 in support of his submission that in a similar case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had held that neither Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 nor Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is attracted.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the Judgment of Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar Gupta and another vs. State reported in 1998 (47) DRJ 84 in support of his submission that mere possession of spurious goods is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC.

HON’BLE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan on perusal of the impugned final report, found that the allegation against the petitioners is that they were in possession of duplicate Reebok/Adidas Bags, Caps and Belts. The said allegation would not attract the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

As regards the offence under Section 420 IPC, the Hon’ble court observed that “there is nothing in the impugned final report to suggest that there was any deception practised upon any person. The possession of spurious goods is certainly not a legal act. However, in the absence of the ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating, one cannot be prosecuted merely because he was in possession of spurious goods. In order to constitute the offence of 420 IPC, there must be a deception practised on any person dishonestly or fraudulently. The impugned final report does not satisfy those necessary ingredients to attract the said offence of Section 420 IPC. The Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kasim Ali vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh dated 13.06.2016 in Misc. Criminal Case No.1362 of 2015 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. This Court is not in agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar Gupta and another vs. State reported in 1998 (47) DRJ 84 for the aforesaid reasons.”

In view of the above, Hon’ble court quashed the impugned Final Repot.

Case title :- Chainsingh & another Vs. State

Case no. :- Crl.O.P.No.6357 of 2021

Order date :- 07.06.2023