Bombay excessive courtroom
Mumbai: The Bombay excessive courtroom on Monday stayed investigation by the Pune police until September 17, in offences registered towards Sony Footage for displaying a emblem in an online sequence on 1992 securities rip-off that resembles the trademark of a financial institution.
The interim order, by a bench of Justices S S Shinde and Nijamoodin Jamadar, was handed in a petition by Sony Footage Community India Pvt Ltd, proprietor of SonyLIV app that aired the sequence, to quash the FIR registered in July, and a petition by Sameer Nair, CEO of Applause Leisure that produced the net sequence. The grievance by Karad City Cooperative Financial institution alleged that within the third episode of net sequence ‘Rip-off 1992, The Harshad Mehta story’, a emblem in a background calendar resembles the financial institution’s trademark, inflicting harm to its “monetary, industrial and social” repute.
Citing grounds for aid, senior advocate Shirish Gupte for Sony mentioned defamation is a non-cognisable offence and can’t be investigated by the police on the premise of an FIR. “Director and senior officers have been referred to as to the police station,” he mentioned. Gupte additionally mentioned Commerce Marks Act, 1999, offers for investigation by officer not under the rank of superintendent or equal. However on this case, it’s being carried out by a police inspector. “It’s a net sequence for leisure. There’s nothing in commerce,” he added.
Senior advocate Amit Desai for Nair mentioned “it’s a query of whether or not the FIR may be investigated in any respect”. He mentioned the actual net sequence doesn’t come inside the scope of the Act, and no offence is made out beneath it. “We aren’t within the enterprise of promoting calendars,” he added. The judges requested the prosecutors to take directions. “You’re taking corrective steps else all investigation can be a waste of time,” mentioned Justice Shinde. The judges mentioned prima facie there may be drive in Gupte’s submission. “Tt isn’t essential to elaborate the explanations. Suffice it to say that investigation of the aforesaid crime can’t be carried out by the investigation officer,” they added.