2008 PLP 207 (MLD)
GHULAM MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 207 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 207 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 207 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 207 (MLD) (GHULAM MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeed ud Din Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Copy Right Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), Ss.66 & 67
Accused was specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of manufacturing the ink with the name and style "Best Dollar Ink", having no permission to use that trade mark, which was similar with the trade mark, used by the complainant
Prima facie, sufficient material was available on record to connect accused with the alleged offence
Accused had failed to show any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police for his false implication in the ease
Such similarity was found in the name and style that any one could easily be deceived while purchasing said item, because no major change existed in the size of the packet, colour, and pieces therein
Prerequisites for grant of bail before arrest were missing in the case
Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was recalled.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
Ghulam Mustafa, the petitioner, is seeking pre-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No.385, dated 29-9-2007, offence under sections, 66 and 67 of the Copy Right Ordinance, 1962, registered at Police Station, New Anarkali, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention. In fact, the matter, in issue, is purely of a civil nature and civil suits under Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001 are pending adjudication between the parties before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Further states that, it is yet to be determined by the trial Court, whether any infringement of Trade Mark is being made or not. No incriminating material is available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The offences alleged to have been committee; by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner deserves extraordinary relief of bail before arrest.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State has vehemently opposed this bail petition.
4. Having given the anxious considerations to the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires that, the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of manufacturing the ink with the name and style "Best Dollar Ink", having no permission to use this trade mark, which is similar with the T.M., being used by the complainant. Recovery is yet to be effected from his possession. Prima facie, sufficient material is available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner has failed to show any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police for his false implication in this case. To my mind, there is so similarity that anyone can easily be deceived while purchasing the said item, because there is no major change in the size of the packet, colour, pieces therein. Normally the people do not care about the name of company. Even otherwise, prerequisites for grant of bail before arrest are missing in this case.
5. In this view of the matter, this bail petition is dismissed and ad interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to the petitioner by this Court on 12-11-2007, is hereby recalled. H.B.T./G-92/L Bail refused.