Bangalore District Court
State By S.J Park Police Station vs Persons on 9 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 9th day of January 2015
Present : Sri.J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.CC No 11495-2013
2.Date of Offence 3-10-2012
3.Complainant State by S.J Park Police Station
4.Accused 1. Hasnen S/o. Akkam Uddin,
33 Years, No.252, 2nd Main,
Nanjappa Layout, Adugodi,
Bangalore.
2. Pappuyadav S/o. Girija yadav,
25 Years, Sidhartha Nagar,
Mysore Road, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.51(b) (1), 63 of Copyright Act
of 1957 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC
6.Plea A1 and 2 pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order A1 and 2 are Acquitted
8.Date of Order 9-1-2015
- --
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, S.J.Park Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the A1 and 2 for
the offences punishable U/s.51(b) (1), 63 of Copyright Act
1957 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 3-
10-2012 within the limits of S.J.Park Police station, at SP
Road, No.175/1, Power Master Tools shop accused were found
in possession and selling the counterfeit/duplicate Diamond
Saw wheels in the name of Carborundum Universal Ltd.,
without there being any authorization or written consent from
the Copyright holder and thereby infringed the Copyright and
by selling the same to the general public as originals of
copyright company have cheated the company as well as
general public and thereby committed aforesaid offences.
3. The A1 and 2 are on bail. On receipt of chargesheet
this court took cognizance of the offences and furnished the
copies of the prosecution papers to the accused persons. After
hearing on charges, this court framed the charge for the
offences punishable U/s.63 of Copyright Act 1957 and
Sec.420 r/w.34 of IPC for which the accused persons pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has not
examined any witnesses. CW 1 to 6 did not turn up before
this court, hence, by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP,
this court dropped the examination of said CW 1 to 6.
5. Since, there is no incriminating evidence against the
accused persons, their statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is
dispensed with.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. This is a case filed by the S.J.Park Police against the
accused for the offences punishable U/s.63 of Copyright Act
1957 and Sec.420 r/w.34 of IPC. In this case, the charge was
framed on 6-1-2014. Thereafter, this court has issued
summons on three occasions, bailable warrants on two
occasions & non-bailable warrants on two occasions even
through Commissioner of Police and by way of publishing
proclamation to CW 1 to 6 till 8-1-2015. This court has
adjourned this case from time to time by granting several
adjournments by enabling the prosecution to produce
witnesses & to prove the allegations against accused. But, the
concerned police have not taken much pain to produce the
witnesses before this court. They have not executed the
process issued against CW 1 to 6. The shara dtd:15/7/14
made by the concerned police indicating that when process
police visited the address of CW 1, he was not available for
service. Further, the process police could not locate the
address of CW 2 to 5. Since CW 6 transferred, the process
police prayed time to serve summons on him. Accordingly, the
process police prayed time to serve to other witnesses also.
Further the shara dtd: 1/9/14 indicating that the process
police visited the address of CW 1 to 3 and informed them to
appear before the court to give evidence. CW 4 and 5 are not
residing in the given address. The process police informed CW
6 to attend before the court. Further the shara dtd: 27/10/14
indicating that the process police informed CW 1 regarding
summons of this case. CW 2 to 5 were not available for service
when the process police visited their address. Since CW 6 is on
special duty, the process police prayed time to serve summons
on him. Even before the date of shara and thereafter sufficient
opportunities have been given to the concerned police to
secure the presence of witnesses by way of issuing summons,
bailable warrant and NBW even through Commissioner of
Police and also by issuing proclamation, but unfortunately the
concerned police have not secured the presence of any
witnesses before the court. It appears that the Investigating
Officer & concerned police have ignored their responsibility.
Since, this is a case of the year 2013, by rejecting the prayer of
learned Sr.APP, this court dropped the examination of CW 1 to
6 in the interest of speedy justice to the accused. Under these
circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate
sheet.
ORDER
Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused persons are hereby Acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.63 of Copyright Act 1957 and Sec.420 r/w.34 of IPC.
Their bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled. The properties seized under PF.Nos.54/12 and 55/12 are ordered to be returned to CW 1 after appeal period is over.
Issue direction to the concerned police to produce the said properties before this court forthwith. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of January 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.