Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 774 (JHR)

Rajesh Gohil v. State of Jharkhand

2011-08-10

JAYA ROY

body2011
ORDER By the Court.- 1.Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application as he has apprehension his arrest in respect of this case i.e. Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. Case No. 503 of 2010 registered for the offence committed under Sections 420/511, IPC and under Sections, 63/65 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 and under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade and Mercandise Marks Act (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3103/ 2010), pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur. 3. The prosecution case, in short, as alleged in the complaint is that M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. got information that M/s. Rajesh Enterprises’ factory is involved in manufacturing and supplying the fake TATA Agrico Implements all over Jharkhand, Bihar and in Kolkata markets manufacture in the name of ‘TATA Agrico’. 'TATA STEEL'. the further case is that the informant being the officer of M/s. Tata Steel and responsible for the said job and having power of attorney in his name to verify, went to the aforesaid factory at Mango, Jamshedpur on 21.11.2010 and on 22.11.2010, without disclosing his identity, posing himself as an ordinay customer quarreling for good quality agricultural implements. There was a man, who upon asking by the informant, told him that he was an authorized Conversion Agent of M/s. Tata Steel-Company and the owner of the factory and his name is Babla. The informant has seen plenty of TATA marked Agrico Shovels of various sizes with TATA Logo printed on them. When the informant categorically asked the owner whether these were genuine TATA Shovels or not, to which he said that 'yes, these were genuine, original TATA Shovels and he was authorized Conversion Agent of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. all over Jharkhand. It is further alleged that when the informant requested him to sell the Shovels as sample, then the said man sold the informant the Shovels with Handle for Rs.200/- and Shovels with wooden Handle for Rs.145/- only and also informed the informant that he could place the order for any amount of Tata Shovels with him, and he would, make available through his factory. He further informed the informant that these Shovels in large, quantity were also available with some of his partner's shop in Jugsalai and Bistupur market and were not only TATA Shovels but TATA Marked Buckets were also available. He further informed the informant that these Shovels in large, quantity were also available with some of his partner's shop in Jugsalai and Bistupur market and were not only TATA Shovels but TATA Marked Buckets were also available. But, on enquiry, he did not disclose their names. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that M/s. Tata Steel Ltd, has not appointed Mr. Babla under any short contract for manufacturing Agrico Shovels nor they have sub-contracted the job for manufacturing of the same to the above mentioned party neither M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. have ever authorized them to use their ‘TATA’ Trade Mark. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was agreement between M/s. Rajesh Enterprises and M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. According to which, conversion agreement was entered into arid on the basis of which, material was supplied to M/s. Tata Steel, the said firm was to manufacture Shovels or other equipments. It is also submitted that the said agreement was effective till 26.11.2009 and further submitted that the design of the Shovel was also given by the company and referred a letter dated 6.11.2005 whereby the firm has executed Bank Guarantee of Rs.14 Lacs. The said agreement period was, extended till 26.3.2010 therefore no offence can be made out against the petitioner along with other co-accused under the aforesaid Sections. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that he has already retired from the Partnership of M/s. Rajesh Enterprises. 5. The counsel for the State has submitted that it has come in the case diary on investigation that a number of witnesses have stated that M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. has earlier entered into an agreement with the petitioner's firm for manufacturing of Shovels, for which Industrial Design was given but the petitioner's firm are manufacturing those Shovels even after the expiry of the contract period, using those Industrial Design and Logo, they are also manufacturing other equipments attaching the aforesaid 'TATA' Logo. It is also contended by the counsel for the State that the petitioner was one of the partners of the said firm, which he himself has admitted. But he has not produced any paper to support his contention that he has retired from the Partnership of M/s. Rajesh Enterprises and he was not the partner of the said firm at the relevant time. But he has not produced any paper to support his contention that he has retired from the Partnership of M/s. Rajesh Enterprises and he was not the partner of the said firm at the relevant time. It is also submitted that the other co-accused have been granted regular bail and not the anticipatory bail. The petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 6. As there is specific allegation against the firm namely M/s. Rajesh Enterprises and the petitioner is admittedly one of the partners. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby, rejected. Bail rejected.