JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - This is an application filed by the accused person in a complaint case bearing I.C.C. Case No. 63 of 1984 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam, Berhampur, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the cognisance taken against them from the offences under sections 78 and 79 of the Indian Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and sections 482 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A complaint was filed alleging that the complainant is the proprietor of a registered trade-mark and also is the owner of the registered copyright for certain labels and has been trading in Khara Masala under the name "Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Ketaki Khara Masala". It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 who is the proprietor of petitioner No. 2 has been passing off his "Khara Masala" under the name "Sri Pamda Nrusinha Ketaki Khara Masala" using identical label and under substantially similar pictorial design and passing off his goods as that of the complainant and thereby committed the offence under the Indian Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, the Copyright Act and the Indian Penal Code. 3. The complainant was examined on 17-5-1984 and thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognisance on the same date summoning the accused persons to appear on 7-6-1984 and also issued search warrant. It is this order of taking cognisance which is being impugned in this application. 4. At the hearing of this application, Mr. Padhi appearing for the petitioners doe's not challenge the order of cognisance so far as it relates to sections 78 and 79 of the Indian Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. He, however, contends that the complaint petition together with the initial statement of the complainant do not make, out any offence either under section 482 or under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that keeping in view the objects and reasons of the Copyright Act, the allegations in the complaint petition also do not attract the provisions of section 63 of the Copyright Act. Mr. Das appearing for the opposite party-complainant, however, contends that at this stage the Court has in possession only the averments in the complaint petition as well as the initial statement of the complainant and those averments must be taken on their face value without any sifting of evidence. Mr. Das appearing for the opposite party-complainant, however, contends that at this stage the Court has in possession only the averments in the complaint petition as well as the initial statement of the complainant and those averments must be taken on their face value without any sifting of evidence. If those materials are considered in entirety, then the order of cognisance cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. I would, therefore, first examine the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in relation to the provisions under section 482 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Section 482 provides for the punishment for using any false property mark. "Property mark" has been defined in section 479, Indian Penal Code, to mean, a mark used for denoting that a movable property belongs to a particular person. Such mark denotes the ownership in goods. Mr. Padhi contends that the concept of "property mark" is something different from "trade mark", and an infringement of "trade mark" in different from an infringement of "property mark". The allegations in the complaint petition do not establish the offence of using a false "property mark". After perusing the complaint petition, I do not think, Mr. Padhi's contention can be sustained. The law on the subject has been well discussed in the case of Sumat Prasad Jain v. Sheojanan Prasad (Dead) by L.Rs. and State of Bihar AIR 1972 S.C. 2488 . It was held in the aforesaid case that to sustain a charge under section 482, the complainant has to establish that the accused marked the goods manufactured by him in packets and receptacles bearing a mark in a manner reasonably calculated to cause it to be believed that the goods so marked or contained in the packets and receptacles belonged to the complainant. The averments in the present complaint petition do prima facie establish that the accused-petitioners were continuing their trade on Khara Masala in packets and receptacles having substantially similar designs and labels which would ordinarily pass on as the goods belonging to the complainant. It is actually the substance of the accusations which must be considered. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the accused used same picture, inscription and label as that of the complainant and, therefore, it is difficult at this stage to hold that the offence under section 482, Indian Penal Code, is not attracted. It is actually the substance of the accusations which must be considered. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the accused used same picture, inscription and label as that of the complainant and, therefore, it is difficult at this stage to hold that the offence under section 482, Indian Penal Code, is not attracted. Accordingly, I would reject the said submission of Mr. Padhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Coming to the question of section 420, Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of the said offence consist of deception by the accused having emulated from the accused and there must be a dishonest inducement from the accused to the persons deceived who believing on such inducement parted with some property or valuable security, and above all, there must be a criminal intention of the accused. In paragraph 3 of the complaint petition, it has been averred that the accused persons have been selling their inferior quality of "pan Khara Masala" under substantially similar label and wrapper with deceivably similar appearance, design, get-up of wrapper, using substantially similar device, same pictorial designs of label and wrapper inscribed with similar photo device which are colourable imitations of the complainant's established and reputed mark with a view to deceive the unwary purchasers of the class of goods complained and in fact the accused persons have been passing off their inferior quality goods as that of the superior products of the complainant and as such practised deception causing wrongful loss to the complainant. If all these allegations are established, then it must be held that the accused persons committed an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, and in that view of the matter, it is impossible to quash the cognisance taken under section 420, Indian Penal Code. 7. The only other submission of Mr. Padhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is in relation to the offence under the Copyright Act. Cognisance has been taken against the petitioners under section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1057. Mr. Padhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act indicates that the provisions of the said Act are intended to prevent authors of books or literary activities from the same being duplicated by another and would not bring within its sweep the trading of a material object. Padhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act indicates that the provisions of the said Act are intended to prevent authors of books or literary activities from the same being duplicated by another and would not bring within its sweep the trading of a material object. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint to the effect that accused are selling their Khara Masala under similar label as that of the complainant would not make out any offence within the ambit of the provisions of the Copyright Act. The aforesaid submission does not appear to be sound in law. Copyright law is, in essence, concerned with the negative right of preventing the copying of physical materials existing in the held of literary and arts. Its object is to protect the writer and artist from the unlawful reproduction of his material. Under section 13 of the Act, copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works the meaning of "copyright" has been given in section 14 which means, the exclusive right in a particular matter referred to therein subject to the provisions of the Act. The term "artistic work" has been defined in section 2(c) to mean :- "(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality ; (ii) ........ (iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship." The allegation in the complaint petition so far as the offence under the Copyright Act is concerned consists of the fact that the petitioners are using labels of substantially similar design, colour and texture on the wrappers while packing their "Khara Masala". Looking at the allegations made in the complaint petition, it would be difficult at this stage to come to the conclusion that the provisions of the Copyright Act are not attracted to the allegations contained in the complaint petition. It would be ultimately a matter for adjudication at the trial. I therefore, do not find any substance in the said submission of Mr. Padhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. In the result, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners fail and accordingly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed