Mustaf shaikh sonof Jamiluddin shaikh age 28 yr r o RM Road Jan Mohamad Kuresh chawl Mumbai vs Sujaraj sonof Neetiram Sulanki age 48 yrs r o D B R compound near Matrachaya college sedam — 615/2015
Case under Ipc Act Section 6365copyrightact1957and103104TradeMarkAct1999. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 26th May 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKB720015872015
Filing Number
615/2015
Filing Date
06-11-2015
Registration No
615/2015
Registration Date
06-11-2015
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SEDAM
Judge
329-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. JMFC,Sedam
Decision Date
26th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
260
Police Station
SEDAM PS
Year
2013
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mustaf shaikh sonof Jamiluddin shaikh age 28 yr r o RM Road Jan Mohamad Kuresh chawl Mumbai
Adv. Assistant public prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Sujaraj sonof Neetiram Sulanki age 48 yrs r o D B R compound near Matrachaya college sedam
Hearing History
Judge: 329-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. JMFC,Sedam
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 30-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 27-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 21-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC No. 615/2015 Court Decision: The accused Sujaram S/o Nitiram Solanki was acquitted of charges under Sections 63-65 of the Copyright Act 1957 and Sections 103-104 of the Trademark Act 1999. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove seizure of counterfeit Zandu Balm products from the accused's shop beyond reasonable doubt, as the panchanama (seizure document) witnesses admitted they did not actually conduct the seizure and merely signed on police request, creating reasonable doubt regarding the custody and authenticity of seized articles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC No. 615/2015 Court Decision: The accused Sujaram S/o Nitiram Solanki was acquitted of charges under Sections 63-65 of the Copyright Act 1957 and Sections 103-104 of the Trademark Act 1999. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove seizure of counterfeit Zandu Balm products from the accused's shop beyond reasonable doubt, as the panchanama (seizure document) witnesses admitted they did not actually conduct the seizure and merely signed on police request, creating reasonable doubt regarding the custody and authenticity of seized articles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts