Bangalore District Court
Police Officer Raided And Seized ... vs And Seized Articles. He Identified ... on 23 May, 2023
C.C.No.13244/2017
1
KABC030323332017
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 23rd day of May 2023
Present : Sri.R.Mahesha.
B.A.L., LL.B.,
IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
1.C.C.No. 13244/2017
2.Date of offence 05/07/2013
3.Complainant State by Rajagopal Nagar Police
Station.
4.Accused M.s. Manjunatha @ Manju @
Quarter Manja,
S/o. Mariyappa
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No. 198/67, 2nd Floor,
8th main, 8th Cross,
Friends Colony,
Hegganavalli Main road,
Bengaluru
C.C.No.13244/2017
2
5. Offences complained of U/Sec.52(A) 63, 68(A) of
Copy Right Act and U/Sec.292
IPC.
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted.
8.Date of Order 23-05-2023.
The Police Sub-Inspector of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.52(A) 63, 68(A) of Copy Right Act and U/Sec.292 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 05.07.2013 at about 3.00 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Rajagopal Nagar P.S. ie., Hegganahalli Main Road, 8th Main, 8th Cross, Building No.144, 2nd Floor, the accused person stored and selling some different language film DVD, Video songs, MP 3 and obscene DVDs without C.C.No.13244/2017 3 obtaining permission from Ganesh and Anand Video, therefore the complainant police officer raided and seized articles from the possession of accused. Hence, CW.1 lodged first information. The Station House Officer registered a case in Cr No.345/2013 for the offences punishable U/Sec.52(A) 63, 68(A) of Copy Right Act and U/Sec.292 of IPC and submitted First Information Report to this Court. After investigation, Police Inspector of Rajgopalnagar Police Station filed charge sheet for the said offences punishable U/Sec.52(A) 63, 68(A) of Copy Right Act and U/Sec.292 of IPC against the accused. Hence, he has committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is on bail. On receipt of charge sheet, this court took the cognizance of the alleged offences and furnished copy of the prosecution papers to the accused C.C.No.13244/2017 4 persons. After hearing on charge, this Court has framed charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.52(A) 63, 68(A) of Copy Right Act and U/Sec.292 of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined only two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got documents marked documents at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and closed the side of the prosecution evidence, and Statements u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. recorded, read over and explained in the vernacular language of the accused person, wherein accused person has denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against him as false and did not choose to lead defence evidence. As such, the matter was posted for arguments.
C.C.No.13244/2017 5
5. I have heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the entire oral evidence and documents placed on record.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 05.07.2013 at about 3.00 p.m. the accused person stored and selling some different language films DVD, Video songs, MP-3 and obscene DVDs without obtaining permission from Ganesh and Anand Video and the complainant police officer raided and seized articles from the possession of accused, for which the accused is punishable U/Sec.52(A) 63, 68(A) of Copy Right Act and U/Sec.292 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:
C.C.No.13244/2017 6 REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- It is well settled that in a criminal case the entire burden of proof rests upon the prosecution and the accused need to prove nothing. Suffice for the accused to create doubt about the case of the prosecution and the reliability of the witnesses for the prosecution.
9. The main allegation of the prosecution is that, on 05.07.2013 at about 3.00 p.m the accused person stored and selling some different language film DVD, Video songs, MP 3 and obscene DVDs without obtaining permission from Ganesh and Anand Video, therefore the complainant police officer raided and seized articles from the possession of accused. Hence, CW.1 lodged first information. As already stated supra, the prosecution has C.C.No.13244/2017 7 examined two witness as PW.1 and PW.2 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 and 2.
10. The prosecution has been examined CW.10 as PW.1 he being Police Officer and member of Raid, he is specifically deposed on oath that, on 05.07.2013 he instructed by his higher officer to raid in one case, therefore he himself along CW.6, CW.1, CW.8, CW.9, CW.11 to CW.13 are proceeded to the alleged place of tobe raid at about 3.00 p.m. and CW.4 and CW.5 are also called as stood as panchas. Accordingly all of them went to Matha Computers Shop and one person found in the said shop and he stored Kannada in the MP-3 CDs for selling. On being enquired CW.1 regarding license for selling stored CDs, he did not have any license and he said his name as Manjunatha @ Quarter Manja. Further accused stated the said shop belongs to his sister, therefore CW.1 seized C.C.No.13244/2017 8 found articles in the presence of panchas and police officers and all of them went back to police station with accused and seized articles. He identified accused persons who is present before this court. It is relevant to note that, on 09.06.2022 at the request of learned Sr.A.P.P further chief examination deferred.
11. The prosecution has been examined CW.3 as PW.2 he being panch witness to Ex.P.1. He is specifically deposed on oath that, he identified his signature found in Ex.P.1 ie., Ex.P.1(b) and he specifically deposed that, he did not saw accused person who is present before court. He did not knew the contents of Ex.P.1 and facts of this case. He did not gave any statement against accused person. Further he deposed that, when he went to Rajgopal Nagar P.S. for his personal work, the police officers took his C.C.No.13244/2017 9 signature on Ex.P.1. Learned Sr.A.P.P. treated him as hostile witness and conducted cross examination with permission of the court, but nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of PW.2 to supporting the case of prosecution.
12. On perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence it appears that, prosecution has been cited CW.1 to CW.14 out of that, they able to examine PW.1 and PW.2. Further it is relevant to note that, PW.1 partly examined and Lr.Sr.A.P.P. took further time for further chief examination of PW.1 and production of seized articles as reported in P.F.109/2013 dt:05.07.2013. Despite took coercive steps against CW.1 to CW.5 CW.6, CW.7, CW.8, CW.9, CW.10, CW.11, CW.12, CW.13 and CW.14. The prosecution has failed to secure their presence well in time and therefore CW.1 to CW.5 CW.6, CW.7, CW.8, CW.9, CW.10, CW.11, C.C.No.13244/2017 10 CW.12, CW.13 and CW.14 are dropped out vide order dt:27.01.2023 and 20.04.2023. Further it is relevant to note that, PW.2 panch witness to Ex.P.1 he completely hostiled to the case of prosecution and he did not supported the case of prosecution, so his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution. |Further it is relevant to note that, PW.1 partly examined by prosecution. He did not tendered for further chief examination and prosecution has not produced seized articles as contending alleged to be seized by CW.1 as per Ex.P.1. Other prosecution material witness are not examined by the prosecution it is fatal to the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of PW.1 and no other corroborative evidence by other prosecution witnesses so there is no any incriminating evidence appears against the accrued. So no evidence from the side of prosecution to prove the alleged offence C.C.No.13244/2017 11 against the accused. So it creates serious doubt regarding the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this court proceed and pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec.52(A) 63, 68(A) of Copy Right Act and U/Sec.292 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically.Property shown in PF No.109/2013 in Sl.No. 1
to 5, 7 to 10 items shall destroyed as per law C.C.No.13244/2017 12 after expire of appeal period.
Further office to direct that property shown in PF No.109/2013 in Sy.No. 6, 11 and 12 forfeited to the state after expire of the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 23rd day of May 2023.) (R.Mahesh) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Henri Madan PW.2 : Lakshman
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Panchanama
Ex.P.2 : Statement.
C.C.No.13244/2017
13
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL List of materials marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bengaluru.