CCB report in spurious goods case quashed
When the case came up for hearing before Justice Sunder Mohan, the petitioners, Chainsingh and Sujansingh, sought the court to quash the charge sheet filed against them by the CCB.
Representative image
CHENNAI: The HC quashed the charge sheet filed by the CCB against two persons for possession of duplicate products of popular ready-made garments, tags, accessories and labels. The court said that one cannot be prosecuted merely because he or she was in possession of spurious goods is certainly not a legal act.
When the case came up for hearing before Justice Sunder Mohan, the petitioners, Chainsingh and Sujansingh, sought the court to quash the charge sheet filed against them by the CCB.
The counsel for the CCB said that the mere fact that the petitioners were in possession of duplicate items of branded products was enough to infer that the said goods were intended to deceive the public and gain wrongfully and attract action under Section 420 IPC.
Countering this, the petitioner’s counsel said that Copyright Act does not apply to garments and other products that have been listed in the final report.
Accepting the argument of the petitioners, the Justice said in the absence of the ingredients to establish the offence against the petitioners, one cannot be prosecuted for mere possession of duplicate goods.
To confirm 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 of the IPC and the final report by the CCB is being quashed, the Justice added. The HC quashed the charge sheet filed by the CCB against two persons for possession of duplicate products of popular ready-made garments, tags, accessories and labels. The court said that one cannot be prosecuted merely because he or she was in possession of spurious goods is certainly not a legal act.
When the case came up for hearing before Justice Sunder Mohan, the petitioners, Chainsingh and Sujansingh, sought the court to quash the charge sheet filed against them by the CCB.
The counsel for the CCB said that the mere fact that the petitioners were in possession of duplicate items of branded products was enough to infer that the said goods were intended to deceive the public and gain wrongfully and attract action under Section 420 IPC.
Countering this, the petitioner’s counsel said that Copyright Act does not apply to garments and other products that have been listed in the final report.
Accepting the argument of the petitioners, the Justice said in the absence of the ingredients to establish the offence against the petitioners, one cannot be prosecuted for mere possession of duplicate goods.
To confirm 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 of the IPC and the final report by the CCB is being quashed, the Justice added.
