1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2558 OF 2008 Shri Jayanthilal Bhojraj Gade .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. B.L. Chawla, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 13th January, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioner is accused in CC No.238/PW/06 arising out of C.R. No. SP CAC 47/05 dated 24th December 2005 pending in the Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court at Bandra, Mumbai. He had filed an application for discharge, which was rejected on 13th March 2008. The petitioner then preferred revision application being Criminal Revision Application No.440 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed by the order dated 26th May 2008. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to challenge both the orders praying for discharge from the proceedings. 2. C.R. No.47 of 2005 was registered under Sections 51, 53 of Copy Right Act, 1957, pursuant to the raid arranged on the shop of the petitioner at the instance 2 of one Suryakant Subrao Kharat who is an employee of E.I.P.R. (India) Limited. In the raid, it was found that the petitioner had kept cartridges of an American company `HP' and Japanese Company `Canon' for sale. On investigation, the cartridges were found to be duplicate and not manufactured by the above two companies. 3. The petitioner contended before the Court of Magistrate and the Sessions Court which contentions are raised before this Court also that the complainant Suryakant Subrao Kharat did not have any locus standi to file the complaint with the Police as he is not concerned with either of the companies. It has been submitted by the prosecution that there is power of attorney given to Mr. Suryakant Subrao Kharat by the two companies, the copy of which is filed on record. 4. It is next contended that both the companies have not registered their trademarks. It is contended that there are discrepancies in the F.I.R. time and the panchanama. It is lastly contended that the learned Judge has failed to consider the letter addressed by the petitioner to one of the companies which had returned back with remarks “Unknown”. 3 5. Both the courts below have held that the prosecution is required to be given an opportunity to lead evidence on all aspects and it cannot be said that on prima facie view no case can be said to have been made out by the complainant. There is no infirmity with both the orders. At the stage of application for discharge, the Court is required to see whether the case is made out for proceeding against the petitioner. All the above contentions raised by the petitioner can be taken up as defence in trial. The petition is dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)