‘Not job of authorities to recover stolen handkerchiefs’: Delhi High Court slams police in ‘Nokia’ handkerchief theft case

“The IO needs custodial investigation in order to recover the allegedly stolen handkerchiefs and to apprehend the co-accused Rajan. To say the least, these do not form part of reasonable requirements of custodial investigation. It is not the job of the investigating authorities to recover the stolen handkerchiefs,” the court said on February 24.

No proper investigation

• The entire exercise of investigation in this case spans to unearth evidence showing that the accused/applicant stole ‘Nokia’ handkerchiefs and sold the same to neighbouring shopkeepers.
• No investigation at all was carried out by the investigator to ascertain if it is a case of trademark dispute in view of use of the well celebrated trademark ‘Nokia’or if it is a case of tax evasion.

• It has been repeatedly pointed out by way of various judicial pronouncements that investigation should be a process to reach the criminal from the crime.
• The investigation should not be just for collecting material to somehow connect the proposed criminal with the crime.

Custodial interrogation? Court not convinced

• The status report filed by the investigating officer stated that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the allegedly stolen handkerchiefs and to apprehend co-accused Rajan.
• The court said that such grounds did not constitute a reasonable requirement for custodial interrogation adding that it was “not the job of the investigating authorities to recover the stolen handkerchiefs”.

• The defence, meanwhile, argued that investigation qua the applicant was complete, that he had been falsely implicated, and that two co-accused continued to work with the complainant without arrest.

Liberty prevails

• Finding “no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty,” the court allowed the application.
• It directed that in the event of arrest, Kumar be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety of the like amount, and ordered him to join investigation as and when required in writing.

Bail plea that travelled benches

• The matter had first come up on July 5, 2024, when a predecessor bench granted interim protection from arrest.
• It remained pending before different benches before being assigned to Justice Kathpalia as part of a cluster of 179 old bail matters.
• Nearly 20 months after interim relief was granted, the court finally settled the question of liberty.

Allegations: Branded handkerchiefs, backdoor sales

• The prosecution alleged that Kumar, while working at the complainant’s shop, siphoned off bundles of ‘Nokia’ handkerchiefs from the go down and sold them to neighbouring shopkeepers.
• He was allegedly assisted by other employees, Rajeev Kumar, Hemraj and Rajan.

• The complainant’s counsel told the court that the accused had been clandestinely selling handkerchiefs branded as ‘Nokia’ for a long period, causing financial losses.
• Photographs were also shown in court to substantiate claims of sale to other shops.
• But it was that very brand name, ‘Nokia’ that shifted the spotlight from alleged theft to the larger canvas of possible trademark misuse or tax irregularities.

Beyond handkerchiefs

• Though the case revolved around something as ordinary as handkerchief bundles, the ruling carries a sharper message.
• Arrest, the court signalled, cannot be a reflexive tool, particularly when the investigation itself appears narrowly focused and foundational questions remain unexplored.

Nutella trademark violation case

last year, the Delhi High Court directed makers of ‘Nutella’, a popular cocoa hazelnut spread, to fill over 3 lakh empty counterfeit jars seized in a raid with its original products and donate to NGOs, who feed the poor as a part of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora in an order passed on November 19, said, “The Plaintiff will be at liberty to use these glass jars as it deems fit for its own use. In case, the Plaintiff does not wish to use the jars for its own products for retail selling, it may consider using these jars for filling up its products and donating to NGOs who feed the poor, as a part of its CSR [‘Corporate Social Responsibility’] initiative.”

The court directed the defendants to return a total of 3,05,925 jars to the plaintiff company within two weeks which were seized from two locations in a raid by officials concerned.