Legal Article: Dilemma of Sealing Factory Premises: A Battle between Authority and Jurisdiction

Introduction:

In a recent case that has garnered attention, a petition has been circulated seeking urgent relief for the de-sealing of a factory premises. The sealing was allegedly carried out following the registration of an FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Trade Marks Act. The legal battle revolves around the interpretation of the Trade Marks Act and the authority of the police to seal the premises.

Content:

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Trade Marks Act does not confer the power upon the police to seal factory premises. Referring to Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, it was pointed out that the police are authorized to seize goods and related items involved in the commission of the offense, but sealing the premises is not within their jurisdiction.

On the other hand, respondent No. 2, the original complainant, contended that due to the size of the machinery involved, seizing it was impractical as per Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. Thus, sealing the factory premises was done to ensure the machinery would not be used in the commission of the offense. Respondent No. 2 suggested that the petitioner could pursue an alternate remedy by raising objections before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, where the seized articles are required to be produced.

Analysis:

Upon careful examination of the Trade Marks Act, it is evident that the police do not possess the power to seal factory premises. Section 115(4) explicitly grants the police the authority to seize enumerated articles without a warrant, but sealing premises is not part of their jurisdiction.

Regarding the availability of an alternate remedy before the Judicial Magistrate, it is important to note that this remedy only applies when there is seizure of the articles. In this case, no seizure of articles occurred; instead, only the sealing of the factory premises took place, which is impermissible under the Trade Marks Act.

Conclusion:

In light of the above analysis, it is evident that the petitioner has a prima facie case for the de-sealing of the factory premises. The police should adhere to the provisions of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act and seize the incriminating articles accordingly. The court has granted interim relief, directing the opening of the factory premises seal. The de-sealing is set to take place tomorrow, accompanied by the lawful seizure of the incriminating articles.

It is crucial for authorities to understand the boundaries of their powers and exercise them within the confines of the law. By doing so, we can ensure a fair and just legal system that respects the rights of all parties involved.

Disclaimer: This article provides a general overview and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal matters, it is recommended to consult with a qualified legal professional.

Case No. – Cri Application No. 496/2023

Case Title - Mahendra Dattu Gore vs State of Maharashtra