IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 23759 of 2005 Between: M/s. Gayatri Marketing, H.No. 3-848-5-5-, YMR Colony, Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.V.C.Pullaiah S/o. Tirupalaiah, aged about 39, R/o. H.No. 3-1088, YMR Colony, Proddatur, Kadapa District, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, 2 The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Proddatur, 3 The Drugs Inspector, Proddatur, Kadapa District, 4 HEINZ (INDIA) LIMITED, (Company regd. under companies Act, 1956) Off: 7th Floor, "D" Shivsagar, Worli, Mumbai through Authorised person Mr.Chetan Rege S/o. Shri Shashikantji Rege, Age 32 yrs, Business Chief Investigation Officer, M/s,. Symbol, 301-A, "Dheeraj Apartments" Natvar Nagar Road No.1 Jogeshwar (E Mumbai. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a writ of MANDAMUS directing the respondents not to interfere in lawful business of the petitioner under the guise of exercising powers under secs. 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act or any other Act capriciously (Without verifying the Competency of the Complainant, the veracity or genuineness of the documents produced along with the complaint and without recording the reasons to get themselves satisfied that there is an infringement and mentioning the documents relied on to come to that conclusion), especially when the questions that fall for consideration are civil in nature and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO : 23761 of 2005 Between: M/s Gayatri Marketing H.No.3-848-5-5- YMR Colony, rep by its Proprietor Mr.Polenalli Natraj S/o.Krishna Murthy, R/o.H.No.16-216, Nadipally Street, Proddatur, Kadapa Distric. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police Kadapa. 2 The Station House Officer, II town Police Station, Proddatur, kadapa District. 3 The Drugs Inspector Proddatur, Kadapa District. 4 Heinz (India) Limited (Company regd. under companies Act 1956) 7th Floor, “D” Shivasagar, Worli, Mumbai, through authorized person:Mr.Chetan Rege, S/o.Shri Shashikanji Rege.Business Chief Investigation Officer, M/s Symbol 301-A, Dheeraj Apartments Natvar Nagar Road No.1, Jogeshwar (E) Mumbai. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in lawful business of the petitioner under the guise of exercising powers under Section 63 and 64 of the copyright Act or any other Act capriciously (without verifying the competency of the complaint the veracity or genuineness of the documents produced along with the complaint and without recording the reasons to get themselves satisfied that there is an infringement and mentioning the documents relief on to come to that conclusion) especially when the questions that fall for consideration are civil in nature and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NOs.23759 OF 2005 AND 23761 OF 2005 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner is one and the same marketing company in both the writ petitions, seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the lawful business of the petitioner under the guise of exercising powers under Sections 63 and 64 of the copyright Act or any other Act without verifying the competency of the complainant, the veracity and genuineness of the documents produced along with the complaint and without recording the reasons to get themselves satisfied that there is an infringement and mentioning the documents relied on to come to that conclusion especially when the questions that fall for consideration are civil in nature. It is stated that on a private complaint filed by the 4th respondent on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddutur, Kadapa District on 28-6-2005 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 102, 103 of Trade Mark Act, 1999, Section 63 of Copyright Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the petitioner is manufacturing, selling, circulating the duplicate Glucon-D in Prodddutur town and surround places, the said complaint was forwarded to the Station House officer, II-Town Police Station, Proddutur and cases were registered in Crime Nos.49 of 2005 and 70 of 2005 respectively on 1-07-2005. It is stated that during the course of investigation, the premises of the petitioner was inspected and seized the Clucon-D packets along with the labeling machines, packing machines and as it appeared that the petitioner was doing business of Glucon-D and other products of Glucose in the said premises without any records, investigation was carried on. The seized material was also sent to the chemical examiner for analysis and his opinion. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the guise of investigation, the police cannot interfere with his business activities and if there is any violation of the Copyright Act or Trade Mark Act or any of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, it is always open for the police to investigate and file a charge sheet or final report as the case may be, but under the guise of investigation, the premises of the petitioner and goods cannot be seized and detained. The scope of criminal investigation is only to establish the guilt of the accused and for that purpose only they can take samples and seize the material objects, but under the guise of investigation, the business activities of the petitioner cannot be interfered with, affecting his civil rights. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the investigation is still pending; the writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations. No costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Date:19-06-2008 Shr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, 2 The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Proddatur, 3 The Drugs Inspector, Proddatur, Kadapa District, 4.2CCs to 5.2CD copies