Section 115 Trademarks Act | Police Can’t Seal Factory Premises Instead Of Seizing Heavy Machinery: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court ordered de-sealing of factory premises in Chakan near Pune and observed that police don’t have the power under section 115 of the Trademarks Act to seal factory premises where incriminating articles were situated.

A vacation bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh and Arif Doctor noted,

“The provisions of sub-section (4) of section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 permits the police officer to seize without warrant the articles / items which are enumerated in the said sub-section. It is not disputed that there is no power vested with the police to seal the factory premises.”

The petitioner Mahendra Gore was booked by the Chakan Police for offences punishable under sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 103, 104 and 105 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Pursuant to the FIR, the police sealed the factory in which the incriminating machinery was found.

Gore approached the HC court against the sealing. Advocate Rameshwar Totla and Rahul Totla instructed by Advocate Ashwin Poojari submitted that the police has the authority to seize without warrant the goods, die, block, machine, plate, other instruments or things involved in committing the offence, but not the factory itself.

Advocate Aniket Nikam instructed by Advocate Ashish Satpute for the original complainant submitted that since the machinery was huge, it was not possible for the police officer to seize the same as envisaged under subsection (4) of section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The factory was sealed only to secure the machinery.

“A perusal of the provisions of section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 reveals that there is no power vested in the police to seal the factory premises where the incriminating articles are situated.”

In response to the original complainant’s submission that an alternate remedy was available before the judicial magistrate first class the court observed that ideally the seized goods would have to be produced before the magistrate. Since the goods weren’t submitted the question of an alternate remedy doesn’t arise.

Observing thus the court ordered de-sealing of the factory premises as interim relief.

Case No. – Cri Application No. 496/2023

Case Title - Mahendra Dattu Gore vs State of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Order