REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MEENA SHARMA; S K NAGAR; VANDANA SINGH; RAJESH KUMAR; DINESH CHANDRA, LATE KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF BIHAR; MD MUSTAFA HUSSAIN; MANAGER BRAND PROTECT6ION, PROCTER AND GAMBLE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

R. P. KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
BASHIRBHAI MOHAMEDBHAI V. THE STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA V. PRAKSH P. HINDUJA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
CONNELLY V. DPP [REFERRED]
DPP V. HUMPHRYS [REFERRED]
JAGDISH SAH VRS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION V. NEPC [REFERRED]
G SAGAR SURI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. MOHAMMAD KHALIQUE [REFERRED]
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE C B I VS. TAPAN KR SINGH [REFERRED]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS. NEPC INDIA LTD [REFERRED]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. PASTOR P RAJU [REFERRED]
INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED]
SHIJI ALIAS PAPPU VS. RADHIKA [REFERRED]
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SANJAY [REFERRED]
RAJIB RANJAN VS. R. VIJAYKUMAR [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This is an application for quashing the First Information Report arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No.485 of 2011 for offences under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 63 of the Copyright Act registered on the basis of fardbeyan of Md. Mustafa Hussain, opposite party no.2 on 27.9.2011 before the Patna Police.

(3.) In the present case one Md. Mustafa Hussain an employee of Kangaroo Agency of Mumbai was authorized on behalf of the Proctor and Gamble (P & G) Company to make inspection and verification in respect of sale of its genuine products by different sales agents of retailed shops. In order to verify the sale of genuine products of Proctor and Gamble Company Md. Mustafa Hussain made inspection of 9 to 9 Shopping Complex at Bander Bagicha on 27.9.2011 at 15 hours. During the survey the informant found that the Company was selling spurious product in the tube and wrapper of the Company. On this information the Officer In-charge along with the police force raided 9 to 9 Shopping Complex, it was found that in the olay packet, batch number of the Company was printed but was not tallying with the batch number mentioned in the tube which is an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 63 of the Copyright Act.

Click here to view full judgment.

MEENA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR; MD MUSTAFA HUSSAIN; MANAGER BRAND PROTECT6ION, PROCTER AND GAMBLE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address