Bangalore District Court
State By S J Park Police vs No.1 And Mo on 4 March, 2023
1
KABC030445712018
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 4th day of March 2023
Present : Sri.R.Mahesha.
BAL.LLB.,
IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
1.C.C.No. 16380/2018
2.Date of offence 13/04/2016
3.Complainant State by S J Park Police
Station.
4.Accused 1. Mahesh S/o.Late Puttappa
Aged about 51 years,
R/o.87/200, X Cross,
Saraswathi Nagar,
Bengaluru.
2. Kukeel Rajesh (Split-up)
5. Offences U/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act and
complained of Sec. 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
2
6.Plea Accused No.1 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused No.1 is acquitted.
8.Date of Order 04/03/2023.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of S J Park Police Station, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/Sec.63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.04.2016 at about 10.00 am CW.1 got information that the accused persons found in possession and selling of duplicate toners of H P Company situated at shop No.13, Print cartridge, within the limits of S J Park Police Station, Bengaluru, without obtaining any licence or permission from the 3 CW.1 and thereby violated the copyright of the company and also cheated to the public and also CW.1 . In this regard, CW.1 lodged first information statement and based on the same FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.54/2016 for the offences punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC. Thereafter, police officers and CW.1 rushed to the spot and conducted raid and seized the alleged duplicate toners by drawing panchanama. Thereafter, PI completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act and Sec. 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. After filing of the charge sheet this Court has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and issued summons to the accused persons. Accused No.1 has appeared before this Court through his counsel and obtained bail. The copy of the charge sheet has been 4 furnished to the accused No.1 as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. But accused No.2 has not been secured. Hence, case against the accused No.2 has split up. After hearing both sides the charge has been framed and read over to accused No.1. But he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case has been posted for prosecution evidence.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 5 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and 5 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and MO.1. Thereafter, the statement of the accused No.1 u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He has not chosen to adduce his defence evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the entire oral evidence and documents placed on record. 5
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 13.04.2016 at about 10.00 am CW.1 got information that the accused persons found in possession and selling of duplicate toners of H P Company situated at shop No.13, Print cartridge, within the limits of S J Park Police Station, Bengaluru, without obtaining any licence or permission from the CW.1 and thereby violated the copyright of the company and also cheated to the public and also CW.1 and thereby committed an offences punishable under Sec.51(1)(B), 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC ?
(2) What order ?
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- The prosecution has alleged that on 13.04.2016 at about 10.00 am CW.1 got information that the accused persons found in possession and selling of duplicate toners of H P Company situated at shop No.13, Print cartridge, within the limits of S J Park Police Station, 6 Bengaluru, without obtaining any licence or permission from the CW.1 and thereby violated the copyright of the company and also cheated to the public and also CW.1. Therefore, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused. As already stated supra, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and MO.1.
9. The prosecution has been examined alleged to be raided police officer CW.4 as PW.1. He being police officer along with CW.6. He deposed before this Court that on 13/4/2016 at about 11.45 am CW.6 called over phone and he came to police station CW.6 introduced CW.1 and he along with CW.6 and other 3 persons went to print cartridge SP Road, Bengaluru, CW.6 introduced him as a police officer by showing his ID card and he informed about FIS given by CW.1 and verified shop and found 10 HP company spurious toners from his shop. CW.6 seized the said properties by drawing seizure panchanama at the 7 spot. He deposed that they took one persons Mahesh from the shop, it is brought to notice that CW.6 that the said shop owner name Pukhil Rajesh and he identified the accused No.1 and MO.1.
10. The prosecution has been examined CW.6 as PW.2 being police officer and Investigation Officer of this case deposed that on 13/4/2016 at about 12.45 pm CW.1 came and gave FIS he received the same and verified registered FIR and forwarded to the jurisdictional Court and his higher police officers. After that he called CW.2 to 4 and proceeded along with them to print cartridge shop, S P Road, Bengaluru. He himself introduced him as a police officer by showing his ID card and he informed about FIS given by CW.1 and verified shop and found 10 HP company spurious toners from his shop. He seized the said properties by drawing seizure panchanama at the spot. He took custody of accused No.1 into his custody he enquired about owner of the shop it is brought to his notice that his 8 owner went to Rajasthan and he returned to police station with accused No.1 and properties and he arrested the accused No.1 and get proper security for his release and he recorded the statements of CW.2 to 4 and he get opinion from CW.6 regarding the seized property and he received documents produced from CW.6 and he identified the accused No.1 and MO.1.
11. The prosecution has been examined CW.1 examined as PW.3. He being informant of this case and Investigation Officer in EIPR Company. He specifically deposed before this Court that on 13/4/2016 he gave FIS to CW.6 in the police station and after that he and CW.4, 6 and panchas went to print cartridge shop, S P Road, Bengaluru, CW.6 verified the said shop and found 10 H P Company spurious toners and he seized the said toners from drawing panchanama at spot. He further deposed that he himself and panchas signed on Ex.P.3 at the spot. He identified accused No.1 and MO.1.
9
12. The prosecution has been examined as CW.3 as PW.4. He being the panch witness to Ex.P.3 and he identified his signature found in Ex.P.3. He specifically deposed that on 13/4/2016 in Print cartridge shop, S P Road, Bengaluru while seized 10 cartridges he and CW.1 and 2 have signed on Ex.P.3 in the shop of print cartridge at S P Road. He identified accused No.1 and MO.1. MO.1 seized by police officers on that day they are spurious products of H P Company.
13. The prosecution examined CW.5 as PW.5. He being Regional Manager of EIPR company and expert. He specifically deposed before this Court that he underwent training in the year 2014 from his EIPR company for identified the products are original or duplicate. He further deposed that on 24/6/2016 CW.6 called over phone and stated that on 13/4/2016 CW.6 seized some products and requesting to verified the same and give report in this regard. Accordingly, he went to police station and verified 10 the properties which are found in police station and gave report as per Ex.P.5.
14. It is relevant to note that the prosecution has been cited CW.1 to CW.6, out of that CW.1, CW.3 to CW.6 are examined as PW.1 to PW.5, other prosecution witness i.e. CW. 2 presence could not be secured in spite of issued process of summons, warrant through local police officer and higher police officers. Therefore, CW.2 dropped out for non-securing them well in time on 16/1/2023. On perusal of prosecution papers it indicates that FIS given at about 12.45 pm on 13/4/2016 and FIR registered and forwarded to the jurisdictional Court at about 1.30 pm. But FIR received by the Magistrate on 15/4/2016 at about 11.30 am. CW.4 stated that on 13/4/2016 before receiving FIS Cw.6 called over phone at about 11.45 am and informed about FIS given by CW.1. CW.6 stated in his cross- examination that he received Ex.P.1 from CW.1 at about 10.30 am. But he registered case stating that he received 11 FIS on 13/4/2016 at about 12.45 pm. Further Cw.4 stated in his cross-examination that CW.1, 4, 6 and two panchas proceeded to S P road by walk, CW.3 stated in his cross- examination that cw.2 and 3 went to S P Road by his bike and cw.1 and his staff came through departmental jeep he signed on Ex.P.3 at about 12.00 noon on 13/4/2016. He signed on Ex.P.3 at police station. CW.6 clearly admitted in his cross-examination he did not issued written notice to panchas but he called through his staff. Cw.4 in his cross- examination stated that when he returned to police station at about 11.45 am cw.1 and panchas are in the police station cw.6 introduced cw.1 to 3 to him in police station. He did not aware about how cw.6 called panchas. CW.1 and 6 clearly admitted in their cross-examination they did not signed on Ex.P.3 and MO.1 they are seized at the spot. Cw.1 clearly admitted in his cross-examination he did not produced original H P Company toners before Cw.6. Further Cw.1 admitted that panchanama drawn from 2-3 pm. CW.6 stated that he conducted spot panchanama 12 from 1.00 pm to 1.45 pm. Further Cw.6 admitted that he did not enquired local witnesses of the alleged seized shop and he did not eqnuired about who is the owner of said building. cw.1 stated in his cross-examination cw.6 enquired about who is the owner of said shop and cw.1 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he saw accused No.1 before Court on 16/1/2023 earlier to this date he did not saw accused No.1 in anywhere. cw.1 and 5 are working in same company cw.5 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he took original HP Company toner to police station to ascertain genuine of the alleged seized properties. But he did not produced any documents to show on 13/4/2016 he brought original company toners to police station. Further Cw.5 admitted in his cross- examination that he did not mentioned particular date, month and year in Ex.P.5. From perusal of oral and documentary evidence that it appears that there is a contradictory evidence come out from the evidence of PW.1 to 5 regarding received FIS and conduct seizure 13 panchanama and MO.1. So its creates serious doubt regarding the case of prosecution. Therefore, there is no supporting evidence from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
15. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec.63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused No.1 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically. 14 The office is directed to keep the entire file in split-up CC No.4129/2022.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day of March 2023).
(R.Mahesha) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW.1: Venkappa PW.2: Santosh PW.3: Harish Kumar PW.4: Vijay Kumar PW.5: Kevinjam.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.3 : Mahazar Ex.P.4 : Letter Ex.P.5 : Report.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 : Toners.15
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
- NIL -
List of documents and materials marked on behalf of the defence:
- NIL -
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bengaluru.16
04/03/2023 Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec.63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC.17
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused No.1 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically. The office is directed to keep the entire file in split-up CC No.4129/2022.
IX ACMM, Bengaluru.