Maulana Ayyub Kadri, a Pune-based social worker filed a criminal complaint against the beedi-manufacturing company. According to Kadri, ``who, though a Muslim, respects other religions,'' the company should be punished under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code due to the commercial use of Lord Ganesh. The case, heard before a magistrate in Pune, was filed not only against the company but also its Pune-based distributor K R Mallya. Mallya approached the High Court for quashing of the lower court proceedings.

Justice Parkar has observed that use of the deity's pictures on the pouches does not constitute an offence because there is no intention to insult a place of worship, neither has the companydamaged/defiled an object of religious worship.

The company has been manufacturing beedis since the year 1932, and their Ganesh trademark was registered since 1942 under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. As per provisions of the Act, symbols/marks which hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class of citizens cannot be registered as trademarks. Before finalising the trademark, the registrar calls for objections.

Moreover, the Central government is further empowered to direct the registrar not to register a particular trademark. And even after registration is granted, objections can be raised before a tribunal.

Therefore, the judge observed, since the Ganesh trademark is being used for the last six decades without objections, a criminal complaint at this stage cannot be entertained. Moreover, the complainant can approach the registrar under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, if he still has any grievance.

According to the complainant, the beedi pouches are likely to be thrown on publicstreets, which will then be trampled upon by passersby. However, the judge observed that even if the pouches are thrown on the street, it does not constitute deliberate defilement of the picture of Lord Ganesha.

Earlier in 1987, the same company had been dragged to the Madras High Court. The beedi label was challenged by a Hindu citizen. He stated that an object of reverence should not be allowed as a commercial trademark. But the Madras High Court had also not entertained the objection. Justice Parkar has stated that even if one assumes commercial exploitation of the object of worship, it does not bring the case within the four corners of IPC.