FIR against patent official for demanding bribe upheld
By Express News Service | Published: 11th March 2018 03:49 AM
The accused allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 10 lakh for releasing a patent in favour of one GR Kaliaperumal.
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has upheld an FIR registered by the CBI against S P Subramaniyan, Deputy Controller and branch head in the office of Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks at Anna Nagar, for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 10 lakh for releasing a patent in favour of one G R Kaliaperumal.
The CBI had registered the case based on information from reliable sources and started investigation. “Since the probe is in the early stages, it is not permissible under law to put a spoke in the course of investigation,” said Justice G Jayachandran, while dismissing the petition from Subramaniyan. “It is always open to the petitioner to appear before the investigation officer as and when summoned and put forth his case.”
Kaliaperumal was accorded patent right for his invention ‘A Composition, Ornamental Plaster mould and not a method for preparing the said mould thereon’, after giving `3 lakh to the official. Thereafter, armed by the patent certificate, Kaliaperumal issued notices to four firms alleging violation of his patent right. In the said dispute, Subramaniyan and his accomplice Madhusudhan demanded `10 lakh on June 9, 2017. Since Kaliaperumal paid only `3 lakh, the officials revoked the patent right granted to him.
By Express News Service | Published: 11th March 2018 03:49 AM
The accused allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 10 lakh for releasing a patent in favour of one GR Kaliaperumal.
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has upheld an FIR registered by the CBI against S P Subramaniyan, Deputy Controller and branch head in the office of Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks at Anna Nagar, for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 10 lakh for releasing a patent in favour of one G R Kaliaperumal.
The CBI had registered the case based on information from reliable sources and started investigation. “Since the probe is in the early stages, it is not permissible under law to put a spoke in the course of investigation,” said Justice G Jayachandran, while dismissing the petition from Subramaniyan. “It is always open to the petitioner to appear before the investigation officer as and when summoned and put forth his case.”
Kaliaperumal was accorded patent right for his invention ‘A Composition, Ornamental Plaster mould and not a method for preparing the said mould thereon’, after giving `3 lakh to the official. Thereafter, armed by the patent certificate, Kaliaperumal issued notices to four firms alleging violation of his patent right. In the said dispute, Subramaniyan and his accomplice Madhusudhan demanded `10 lakh on June 9, 2017. Since Kaliaperumal paid only `3 lakh, the officials revoked the patent right granted to him.
No comments:
Post a Comment