Delhi District Court
State vs Udit Gupta on 17 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. HARSHITA MISHRA
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Digitally
signed by
HARSHITA
CNR No. DLCT020027632013 HARSHITA
MISHRA
MISHRA
Date:
CR. CASE NO. 296134/2013 2026.01.21
13:12:06
+0530
FIR NO. 107/2010
PS: CRIME BRANCH
STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS
U/s: SECTION 63 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 AND
SECTION 103 & 104 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1958.
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 107/2010
(b) Date of offence 20.07.2010
(c) Complainant Sh. Dharambir
(d) Accused 1. Udit Gupta,
S/o S.K. Gupta,
R/o B-25/118, Guru Nanak
Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
2. Anil Kumar Gupta,
S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal
Gupta,
R/o B-25/118, Guru Nanak
Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
3. Balbir,
S/o H. No. 1761/64,
R/o Pataudi House, Darya
Ganj, Delhi.
(e) Offence Section 63, Copyright Act, 1957
and Sections 103 & 104, Trade
Marks Act, 1958.
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
FIR NO. 107/2010
PS: CRIME BRANCH
STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS
Page No. 1 of 10
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of Institution 19.07.2013
(I) Date when judgment 17.01.2026
was reserved
(j) Date of judgment 17.01.2026
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present case u/s Section 63, Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103 & 104, Trade Marks Act, 1958 filed against accused Udit Gupta, Anil Kumar Gupta, and Balbir.
2. The story of the prosecution is that: On the basis of a written complaint of Sh. Dharambir, employee of M/s EIPR (India) Ltd. received in the office of Additional Commissioner, EOW, vide Diary No. 464 dated 23.05.2010, FIR No.107/2010 u/s 103 and 104 Trade Marks Act and u/s 63 Copyrights Act, came to be registered by PS EOW on 20.07.2010. In furtherance of the FIR, raids were conducted on 20.07.2010 at Nicolson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. First of all, a raid was conducted at the shop M/s Earth Movers Traders situated at 779/2, Ground Floor, Nicolson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, belonging to the accused Udit Gupta and Anil Gupta, from where counterfeit air filters, oil filters and its cartoons bearing falsified Trademark and Copyright designs of Kirloskar were found which were kept in the shop for FIR NO. 107/2010 PS: CRIME BRANCH STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS Page No. 2 of 10 purpose of sale. The said articles were seized as per seizure memo, Mark-X. Further, on pointing out of accused Udit Gupta, raid was also conducted at shop M/s Auto Pack Industries situated at 3655/4, Sri Ram Market Tractor Market, Mori Gate, Delhi belonging to accused Balbir Singh from where counterfeit products and packing material bearing falsified Trademark and Copyright designs of Kirloskar were found which were kept in the shop for purpose of sale. The said articles were seized as per seizure memo, Mark-Y. Meanwhile, opinion was also sought from the office of Registrar of Trade Marks, which was received vide letter dated 09.06.2010. The seized materials were found to be counterfeit products of Kirloskar.
3. The accused persons accordingly, were booked under Section 63 Copyrights Act, 1957 and Section 103 & 104 Trade Marks Act, 1958.
4. After completing the investigative formalities, Charge sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Udit Gupta and Balbir Singh on 19.07.2013. Later, when specific queries were put by the Ld. Predecessor as to why Anil Kumar Gupta was not arrayed as an accused in the present case, even when it had come on record that he was running a partnership firm with accused Udit Gupta, was accused Anil Kumar Gupta made an accused in the present case. Cognizance was taken on 24.02.2015. Copy of FIR NO. 107/2010 PS: CRIME BRANCH STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS Page No. 3 of 10 chargesheet was supplied to the accused Udit Gupta and Balbir on 06.05.2015 and to accused Anil Gupta on 12.08.2015.
5. Charge was formally framed against the accused persons on 12.02.2021 under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution summoned the complainant Dharambir, Investigator/ AR of M/s EIPR, who witnessed the recovery and seizure of counterfeit products and arrest proceedings, and Sh. Gulfraz Makani, Director of M/s EIPR, on multiple occasions. However, the complainant did not appear to testify, despite the summons being served well in time. He was accordingly, dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined vide order dated 17.01.2026. The only witness who was examined was Mr. Amir Khan, Examiner of Trademark, who deposed that he had appeared on behalf of Ms. Prem Lata, the then Assistant Registrar of Trade Mark. He stated that he was to recognize her signature on her opinion dated 09.06.2010. He added that Ms. Prem Lata had retired from the aforesaid post before he joined the office in 2022 and that her present whereabouts were not known to us. He stated that he had seen the document prepared by her and her signature in the documents of her FIR NO. 107/2010 PS: CRIME BRANCH STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS Page No. 4 of 10 term. He stated that as per record, ACP T.P. Singh wrote a letter dated 28.05.2010 to Trademarks office, Dwarka, Delhi, seeking verification and opinion on the counterfeit trade mark in the name of Kirlosker, having a registered Trade Mark No. 196600 Class VII registration. In furtherance of the said letter, the aforesaid matter was referred to Ms. Prem Lata, Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and accordingly she examined the aforesaid trade mark expression based on original trade mark and counterfeit trade mark. After examination, she gave her opinion in the form of letter dated 09.06.2010 alongwith the then status of the impugned trade mark No. 196600 Class VII registration. The said letter containing her opinion was Ex. PW-1/B (colly). In his cross- examination, the witness denied the suggestion that his Department had prepared false and forged record regarding the aforesaid trade mark. No other witness was examined in the matter.
7. The prosecution evidence was closed on 17.01.2026. Considering that there was no incriminating material on record against the accused, the statement of the accused under S. 313 (2) CrPC was dispensed with. Similarly, without any evidence implicating the accused, no purpose was to be served by requiring him to lead defence evidence. Accused submitted that he did not wish to lead any defence evidence. Therefore, right to lead DE was FIR NO. 107/2010 PS: CRIME BRANCH STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS Page No. 5 of 10 closed.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
9. The following point arises for determination in the present case: Whether _____________?
10. The edifice of a trademark infringement case rests upon the testimony of the person who can legally swear to the 'spurious' nature of the goods. In this matter:
the Authorized Representative (AR) of EIPR, who set the criminal law in motion, failed to step into the witness box. The Director of EIPR, whose expertise or authorization was central to identifying the goods as counterfeit, remained absent throughout the trial. Despite multiple opportunities and the issuance of coercive processes, they chose to remain in the shadows, leaving the Prosecution to fight a battle without its primary commanders. It is a settled proposition of law that in cases alleging trademark infringement, the testimony of the complainant is not merely formal but is substantive and indispensable. The complainant as well as Director of EIPR, alone could have deposed regarding the way the products were counterfeits. In the absence of the their testimonies, the very edifice of the prosecution case stands eroded. The allegations made in FIR NO. 107/2010 PS: CRIME BRANCH STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS Page No. 6 of 10 the complaint, howsoever serious, remain unproven assertions unless tested on the anvil of oath and cross- examination.
11. A police officer may testify to the fact that a bag was seized from a shop; however, a police officer cannot, in the eyes of the law, testify that the logo on a seized product is a deceptive imitation of a registered trademark. Such a determination requires the testimony of the Trademark owner or a certified expert who can point out the specific deviations from the original. The testimony of the police is the frame of the picture, but the testimony of the Complainant is the picture itself. In the absence of the Complainant, the Court is left with an empty frame. Hence, their examination was dispensed with as it would not have helped the prosecution's case. In the absence of the AR or the Director of EIPR, the 'Expert Opinion' or 'Infringement Report' remains a mere piece of paper--unproven, unexhibited, and legally inadmissible as hearsay.
12. Further, criminal jurisprudence demands proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In IPR litigation, the 'identity' of the goods is the corpus delicti. By failing to produce the Complainant, the accused were deprived of their valuable right to cross-examine their accuser. Further, the Court was deprived of the opportunity to verify the authorization of the complainant. The Prosecution failed to bridge the gap FIR NO. 107/2010 PS: CRIME BRANCH STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS Page No. 7 of 10 between 'possession of goods' and 'infringement of a trademark.'
13. In the present case, there is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that the accused had infringed the trademark of Kirloskar. Mere filing of a chargesheet or existence of allegations in the complaint cannot take the place of proof. It is also well settled that no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused for the lapses or inaction on the part of the prosecution or the complainant. The accused cannot be made to suffer the ordeal of a criminal trial when the prosecution itself has failed to discharge its primary burden. The law cannot presume infringement; it must be proven by those who claim to be infringed. As the essential link in the chain of evidence is missing, the Prosecution has failed to discharge its burden.
14. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. To keep a criminal trial pending indefinitely when the star witness shows no interest in the prosecution is a travesty of justice and a waste of precious judicial time. The absence of complainant from the witness box has created an irreparable evidentiary void which couldn't be filled up by the testimonies of the police/ official witnesses alone and for this reason, this court had dispensed with their examination.
FIR NO. 107/2010PS: CRIME BRANCH STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS Page No. 8 of 10
15. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The guilt of the accused must stand on its own feet and cannot be predicated upon the weakness of the defence.
16. In the case at hand, the foundation of the prosecution's charge under Section 104 of the Trademarks Act has remained unproved. The complainant and Director of EIPR, who were the most material witness, have conspicuously remained absent. In the absence of their testimonies, the allegations remain unverified. Without proving those allegations, the charge under Section 104 Trademarks Act falls like a house of cards.
17. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. The benefit of doubt, which is not a matter of charity but a matter of right, must necessarily go to the accused. Accordingly, accused Udit Gupta, Anil Kumar Gupta, and Balbir, is hereby acquitted of the charges u/s 104 Trademarks Act levelled against him.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
19. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the FIR NO. 107/2010 PS: CRIME BRANCH STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS Page No. 9 of 10 accused/ his counsel against due acknowledgment.
Digitally signed by HARSHITA MISHRAHARSHITA Announced and Signed in the Open Court MISHRA Date:
2026.01.21 13:12:57 on 17th January, 2026 +0530 (Harshita Mishra) Chief Judicial Magistrate Central/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 17.01.2026 FIR NO. 107/2010 PS: CRIME BRANCH STATE Vs. UDIT GUPTA AND OTHERS Page No. 10 of 10