Case Overview
The case of Sri Raghunath Ananda Rokhade v. The State of Karnataka, adjudicated by the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, represents a pivotal judicial review of procedural compliance in criminal proceedings related to intellectual property. Heard under Criminal Petition No. 102679 of 2025, the petitioner invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The petitioner sought to quash the charge sheet and related proceedings initiated for alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The dispute arose from the misapplication of the Copyright Act instead of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and a police search conducted without statutory authority.
Factual Background
Sri Raghunath Ananda Rokhade, a 56-year-old businessman from Pune, Maharashtra, was listed as accused number 5 in a criminal case initiated by the Kudachi Police in Raibag, Belagavi District, Karnataka. The case stemmed from the alleged sale of counterfeit goods, including:
- 900 shirts
- 200 pants
- 30 T-shirts labeled “Allen Solly”
- 20 shirts of “Van Heusen”
- 40 shirts of “Peter England”
- 30 shirts of “Louis Philippe”
These activities allegedly caused a financial loss of ₹13,50,000 to brand owners. The Kudachi Police filed a charge sheet in C.C. No. 1502/2021, accusing the petitioner of offences under:
- Section 420 IPC (cheating)
- Sections 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957
The petitioner argued that the alleged offence was one of trademark infringement, governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He further challenged the legality of the investigation, asserting that the search and seizure by a Sub-Inspector violated Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, which mandates such actions be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), with the Registrar’s opinion.
Procedural Background
The petitioner filed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS) before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1502/2021 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Raibag.
The primary grounds for the petition included:
- Misapplication of the Copyright Act
- Procedural non-compliance under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act
Justice Venkatesh Naik T heard the matter. The petitioner was represented by Shri Ramachandra A. Mali, while Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, High Court Government Pleader, appeared for the State. The oral judgment was delivered on 24 July 2025.
Core Dispute
The central issue was whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 1502/2021 should be quashed due to:
- Incorrect reliance on the Copyright Act instead of the Trade Marks Act
- Investigation conducted in violation of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act
The petitioner maintained that:
- The allegations related to trademark offences (Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act)
- The procedural requirement under Section 115(4) was not met
The State conceded that the allegations pertained to trademark law and acknowledged the procedural lapses. Therefore, the dispute hinged on the applicability of the correct legal framework and the validity of the investigation.
Discussion on Judgments
The petitioner relied on two Karnataka High Court precedents:
- Criminal Petition No. 2080/2023 (disposed on 19 June 2024): The court held that search and seizure actions under the Trade Marks Act must be undertaken by a DSP with the Registrar’s opinion. Non-compliance invalidated the complaint.
- Criminal Petition No. 6096/2016 (disposed on 28 February 2019): The court quashed proceedings involving counterfeit branded goods, ruling that they fell under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, not the Copyright Act. It also noted that a Sub-Inspector’s search violated Section 115(4), and absence of consumer complaints negated Section 420 IPC.
These precedents supported the petitioner’s contention that the investigation and charges were legally unsustainable.
Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Venkatesh Naik T delivered a reasoned oral judgment, focusing on two major flaws:
- Misapplication of the Copyright Act: The court noted that Section 13(1) of the Act applies only to original works like literature, films, or recordings. The sale of counterfeit branded goods pertains to false trademarks, not copyright infringement.
- Procedural non-compliance: The search was conducted by a Sub-Inspector, in violation of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. The absence of consumer complaints further weakened the cheating charge under Section 420 IPC.
Citing prior judgments, the court concluded that the investigation and subsequent charge sheet were vitiated by legal and procedural defects.
Final Decision
On 24 July 2025, the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad allowed Criminal Petition No. 102679 of 2025. It quashed the charge sheet and all proceedings in C.C. No. 1502/2021 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Raibag, insofar as they pertained to the petitioner.
The court held that:
- The charges under Section 420 IPC and Sections 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act were inapplicable
- The investigation was procedurally invalid under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act
Law Settled in This Case
This ruling reaffirms several legal principles:
- Counterfeit branded goods fall under the Trade Marks Act, not the Copyright Act
- Search and seizure under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act must be performed by a DSP-level officer, with the Registrar’s opinion
- Non-compliance with these procedural norms renders the proceedings invalid
- The absence of consumer complaints negates the charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC
- The court retains inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (or Section 528 BNSS) to prevent abuse of legal process and uphold fair investigation standards
Case Information
- Case Title: Sri Raghunath Ananda Rokhade vs. The State of Karnataka
- Date of Order: 24 July 2025
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 102679 of 2025
- Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:9134
- Court: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
- Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
