22.09.2026 Sl. No.992. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/2391/2025 Pankaj Rai @ Pankaj Kumar Rai Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Ms. Sarmistha Basak, Mr. Vishal Singh …for the petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld.P.P., Mr. Somnath Adhikary, Mr. P. Karan Singh …for the State In this application, the petitioner has assailed the proceeding being Entally Police Station Case No.222 of 2024 dated 30.10.2024 under Section 61(2)/318(4) of BNS read with Section 63/65 of the Copy Right Act presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a daily wage earner working as an employee with Sri Bajrang Ply where he had joined on 18th July, 2024. On 30th October, 2024, the petitioner was instructed by his employer Niraj Mishra ( the other charge sheeted accused) to accompany some customers to a place under the jurisdiction of Entally Police Station to help in loading a goods carriage vehicle with Century Plywood (Club Prime). Therefore, the petitioner merely accompanied the customers of his employer to oversee the loading of articles in the goods vehicle. At around 12:00 hours on 30th October, 2024, Police Authorities of Entally 2 Police Station apprehended the petitioner and started the proceeding against the petitioner and other accused persons. However, after completion of investigation police has submitted charge-sheet only against the present petitioner and the owner of the business, Niraj Mishra and other two accused persons were discharged. One Chetna Khanna, being the authorized representatives of M/s. Century Plyboards India Limited alleged inter alia in the FIR that recently they have come to know that some manufacturers/suppliers within the jurisdiction of Entally Police Station are supplying spurious imitations and inferior quality plyboards, plywoods, and blackboards under the brand name ‘CENTURY’/’CENTURYPLY’/’CENTURYPLY CLUB PRIME’ etc which are deceptively similar to their registered brand ‘CENTURY’/’CENTURYPLY’/’CENTURY CLUB PRIME’. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation as disclosed in the FIR failed to show any indication that there was any inducement on the part of the petitioner to dupe and/or cheat the opposite party no.2. The petitioner is no way connected in the instant case. On a perusal of the petition of complaint, it is evident that the petitioner had no role in the instant case except loading and unloading goods/articles to the vehicle upon instruction of his employer, Niraj Mishra. He further submits that mens rea is the key ingredient of Section 318(4) of BNS which is conspicuously absent in respect of the present petitioner. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had any 3 intention to cheat or deceive anyone. He, being a labour only works upon the instruction given to him. He further submits that the ingredients under Section 63 of the Copy Rights Act as mentioned in the charge-sheet also falls flat on the face as because the petitioner was a mere labour who works under instruction of his employer and has no role to play with regard to any profits or any business relating to the products associating the case. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the Case Diary and pointed out the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation. However, he leaves the prayer made by the petitioner to the discretion of the Court. I have considered the submission made on behalf of both the parties and also perused the materials placed in the case diary. It appears that during investigation police has recorded statement of two charge-sheeted accused persons and two other partners of the business, who were discharged after completion of investigation. I have also perused the statement of two seizure witnesses recorded during investigation. In Sharif Ahmed & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & another, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 726, it has been laid down that:- “32. Therefore, the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the charge-sheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the charge-sheet, for each of the accused persons.” In the instant case the charge sheet only states that both the accused persons are involved in committing alleged offences. There 4 is no indication in the charge sheet which crime has been committed by which accused and what are the material evidences against the present petitioner so that he may be implicated with the alleged offences under the BNS or under the copy Right Act. The role played by present petitioner has not been mentioned in the charge sheet. The only incriminating material against present petitioner is that the other accused, who is not the petitioner herein, in order to discharge his liability and to make the petitioner scapegoat made a statement against him under section 161 Cr.P.C., which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Having considered the overall materials available in the case record, I find that during investigation, prosecution had failed to substantiate the allegation levelled in the complaint against the present petitioner. It also appears from the charge-sheet that it failed to disclose what exact role had been played by the present petitioner in commission of the offence. Therefore, it appears that during investigation, the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 61(2)/318(4) of the BNS or Section 63 of the Copy Rights Act has not been made out against the present petitioner who is admittedly a mere employee of the original owner of the business. Therefore, I find from the available materials that chance of conviction of the present petitioner is bleak, even if a façade trial is allowed to continue. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find that further continuance of the impugned 5 proceeding qua the petitioner would be mere abuse of the process of the Court. In view of above, CRR 2391 of 2025 is allowed. The impugned proceeding being Entally Police Station Case No.222 of 2024 dated 30.10.2024, presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah is hereby quashed qua the petitioner, Pankaj Rai @ Pankaj Kumar Rai. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )