Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court held that non-compliance with Subsection (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Mark Act, which mandates obtaining the Registrar of Trade Marks’ opinion before conducting search and seizure, constitutes an irregularity rather than a ground for quashing infringement proceedings. Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered this judgment while dismissing a petition filed by Manjunatha M S, who contested the prosecution initiated against him for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Trade Mark Act, 1999. This case delved into procedural nuances and the interplay between different statutory provisions, ultimately reinforcing the principle that procedural irregularities must be demonstrated to have caused a failure of justice to merit dismissal.

Arguments Presented to the Court:

Manjunatha M S, the petitioner, argued that the complaint against him was purposefully registered under the wrong provisions of law, specifically Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, rather than the appropriate sections of the Trade Mark Act. He contended that this misregistration allowed the police to bypass the requirement under Subsection (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Mark Act, which mandates obtaining the Registrar of Trade Marks’ opinion before search and seizure operations. The petitioner claimed this constituted an abuse of the legal process by both the complainant, K R Nagendra, and the investigating officers. He sought the quashing of the proceedings on the grounds of procedural irregularities and alleged malafide intent.

The complainant, K R Nagendra, opposed the petition, asserting that non-compliance with the proviso to Subsection (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Mark Act did not warrant quashing the proceedings. The prosecution argued that procedural irregularities, such as failing to obtain the Registrar’s opinion, should be addressed during the trial and should not invalidate the entire process unless it is shown to have caused a failure of justice. The respondent emphasized that the registration of the FIR under the wrong provisions could be corrected during the investigation, which was done in this case when the chargesheet was laid under the correct sections of the Trade Mark Act and the IPC.

Court’s Observations and Queries:

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, presiding over the case, meticulously examined the procedural aspects and statutory requirements. The Court acknowledged that in certain circumstances, the complainant might cite incorrect legal provisions, but this did not bind the police to reproduce these provisions verbatim in the FIR. The police are responsible for incorporating the correct legal provisions based on the evidence and findings during the investigation.

The Court noted that while the initial FIR was registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and relevant sections of the IPC, the subsequent investigation revealed that offences under Sections 102, 103, and 104 of the Trade Mark Act were more appropriate. This adjustment in the chargesheet was deemed permissible and did not invalidate the proceedings.

Procedural Nuances:

The Court examined the specific procedural requirement under Subsection (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Mark Act, which mandates that no police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police can order a search or seizure without obtaining the Registrar of Trade Marks’ opinion. The Court acknowledged that the non-compliance with this requirement constituted an irregularity but did not necessarily warrant quashing the proceedings unless it could be shown that such non-compliance resulted in a failure of justice.

Malafide Intent and Procedural Compliance:

The petitioner’s claim that the FIR was purposefully misregistered to bypass procedural requirements was scrutinized. The Court opined that if it was evident that the complaint was registered under the wrong provisions with malicious intent, it could intervene under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, the Court found no concrete evidence of such malafide intent in this case. The initial misregistration was corrected during the investigation, and the chargesheet was appropriately filed under the correct sections of the Trade Mark Act and the IPC.

Court’s Judgement:

The Court concluded that the non-compliance with the proviso to Subsection (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Mark Act was an irregularity that did not go to the root of the investigation. Such irregularities must be shown to have caused a failure of justice to merit quashing the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the trial would provide an opportunity to establish whether the procedural irregularity had caused any prejudice to the petitioner.

Findings:

Procedural Irregularity: The Court held that the failure to obtain the Registrar’s opinion before conducting search and seizure was an irregularity, not a fatal flaw in the proceedings.

Corrective Measures:

The misregistration of the FIR under the wrong provisions was rectified during the investigation, and the chargesheet was appropriately filed.

No Evidence of Malafide Intent:

The Court found no concrete evidence to support the petitioner’s claim of malafide intent in the initial registration of the complaint.

Opportunity for Redressal:

The petitioner could raise the issue of procedural irregularity during the trial to establish if it caused a failure of justice.