Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, and Section 420 IPC.= The petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.894 of 2012 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, and Section 420 IPC. 2. The accusation made against the petitioner is that he resorted in selling the fans by using the brand names as if the fans have been manufactured by Bajaj Electricals etc.= The panchas noticed 243 name plates which the petitioner has been using as if the fans manufactured by him are from the reputed companies like Bajaj Electricals etc. Such is the accusation leveled against the petitioner, he does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.1073 of 2013

 

Date:20^th February, 2013

Between:

Ashok Bermecha S/o.Chandan Mal Barmecha

….Petitioner/Accused

And

The Station House Officer, Police Station Kukatpally, Cyberabad District, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

…..Respondent/Complainant

***

                                                              

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.1073 of 2013

ORDER:

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.894 of 2012 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, and Section 420 IPC.

2.     The accusation made against the petitioner is that he resorted in selling the fans by using the brand names as if the fans have been manufactured by Bajaj Electricals etc.

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

4.     Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in the fans business since 1997 and there are no complaints against him and therefore, the petitioner deserves for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.     Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State opposed the application on the ground that the premises of the petitioner has been inspected and a panchanama came to be drafted and fake name plates used by the petitioner came to be seized during the course of panchanama.  Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed before me the copy of the panchanama conducted at the premises of the petitioner.

6.     The panchas noticed 243 name plates which the petitioner has been using as if the fans manufactured by him are from the reputed companies like Bajaj Electricals etc.  Such is the accusation leveled against the petitioner, he does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.

7.     Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date:20^th February, 2013.

 

cs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criminal Petition No.1073 of 2013

 

 

 

 

Date:20^th February, 2013