1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1393 OF 2007 Bhagwan s/o Himmatrao Bangale, Aged 26 years, Occupation Business, Marketing Manager, Rajureshwar Seeds Company, Tembhurni, Taluka Jafrabad, District Jalna, Resident of Tembhurni, Taluka Jafrabad, District Jalna Applicant V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Police Inspector, Tembhurni Police Station, Taluka Jafrabad, District Jalna. 3. The Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd., Jalna- Aurangabad Road, at Dawalwadi, Taluka and District Jalna, through it’s authorized Signatory and General Manager (MAHYCO) Company, Resident of Plot No. 3- A, Nandigram Colony, in front of Gajanan Maharaj Mandir, Garkheda, Aurangabad Respondents Mr. S.B. Ghute, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.N. Kendre, APP for the respondents No. 1 & 2 / State Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The learned Advocate Shri. Ghute, appearing for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw his powers, because, according to him, his client has not come to him with file. His application stands 2 rejected. Mr. Ghute is allowed to keep copy of his letter sent to his client on record along with postal acknowledgment. 2. The applicant through this application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeks to quash Summary Trial Case No. 433 of 2006, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jafrabad, District Jalna, which was registered pursuant to Crime No. 3007 of 2006, registered with Tembhurni Police Station, Taluka Jafrabad, District Jalna, under Section 51 read with Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. 3. The respondent No. 3 is the complainant. The complainant was lodged on 18th June, 2006 alleging that the applicant had infringed the copy right in respect of the art work of the packet, in which the respondent No. 3 sold one of their products, viz. Bajara Seed. The police registered the offence and sent the charge-sheet against the applicant to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jafrabad, where the case was registered as S.T.C. No. 33 of 2006. 4. Soon after the registration of the case, the present application was moved seeking quashment of the entire case. The applicant suggested that prima facie there appears no infringement of the copy right of the respondent No. 3 / complainant. Photographs of both the packets of both the parties are annexed to the application at page No. 24. 5. On the face of it, they look very similar. The respondent No. 3 / complainant by filing affidavit in reply, opposed the application and further elaborated as to how it was they who started using this art work for packaging their product prior to the applicant’s. They stated that they have been using this particular art work for packaging their product since 1997 and they have not changed the same till date. Whereas, the applicant, for the first time in 2006, obtained a licence for marketing self produced seeds. So, it is clear that the applicant 3 started marketing their product since 2006 and they started using the questioned design for packaging their product since 2006. It is also the respondent No. 3 / complainant’s case that they have registered their trade mark “MAHYCO” since 1970. As said above, the art work of both the packaging is so similar that the applicant would be able to pass of his product as that of the respondent No. 3 / complainant’s. On the face of it, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant. There is, therefore, no possibility of quashing of the S.T.C. No. 433 of 2006 and the crime registered against the applicant. The Criminal Application stands rejected. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/ca/1393/07/201010/ok