Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Parkash Ahuja on 26 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA SHARMA ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
STATE Vs. RAM PARKASH AHUJA
FIR No. 465/2016
PS: Karol Bagh
U/s 63 of Copyright Act & 103/104 of
Trade Mark Act
Date of Institution of case : 24.07.2019
Date of Judgment reserved : 12.07.2024
Date on which judgment pronounced : 26.07.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Cr. Case No. :9769/2019 2. Date of commission of offence: 01.02.2018 3. Name of complainant : SH. SHADAB KHAN,
4. Name and address of accused : RAM PARKASH AHUJA S/o Late Sh. Ram Lal R/o H. No. 251, Dayanand Vihar, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.
5. Offence complained of : U/s 63 of Copyright Act & 103/104 of Trade Mark Act.
6. Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : ACQUITTED Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 1/15 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the final outcome in the FIR No. 465/2016, registered at Police Station: Kashmere Gate, wherein alleging the commission of the offence punishable under section 63 of Copyright Act & 103/104 of Trade Mark Act.
PROSECUTION CASE
2. The prosecution case in brief is, that on 01.02.2018, accused, at shop no. 1098, Ground Floor, Kashmere Gate, was found in possession of making and selling of counterfeit products M/s LUK (SCHAEFFLER GURUP) and TATA, which were recovered vide seizure memo Mark A and Mark B, respectively from the abovesaid shop. The copyright and trademark of aforesaid recovered product was with complainant company i.e. M/s LUK (SCHAEFFLER GURUP) and TATA and thereby accused committeed offence punishable U/s 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 103/104 of Trademark Act.
3. Investigation was conducted. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court on 24.07.2019, against accused person for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 103/104 of Trademark Act.
4. On 30.07.2019, cognizance of offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Accused put in an appearance in the Court. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to them.
Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 2/15CHARGE
5. Charge in terms of section 251 Cr.P.C was framed upon the accused for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under sections 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 103/104 of Trademark Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Therefore, further proceedings were carried out to record the evidence of prosecution.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS IN TERMS OF PROVISION OF SECTION 294 Cr.P.C.
6. In terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C, accused has not disputed the genuineness of FIR Ex. A1, Endoresement on rukka Ex. A2, Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. A3, DD No. 20 Ex. A4, DD No. 27 Ex. A5 and proceedings U/s 64 of Copyright Act Ex. A6. Therefore, the name of Ahlmad in the Court of Dinesh Kumar MM, to prove proceedings U/s 64 Copyright Act, DO/DIU with regard to DD numbers and DO/W SI Saroj Kumar, were dropped from the list of witnesses.
WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION
7. Complainant Sh. Shabad Khan was examined as PW1 and Sh. Surender Kumar was examined as PW2.
EVIDENCE S. No. PW Name Document Proved Exhibit No. No.
1. PW1 Sh. Shabad Complaint lodged at Ex. PW1/A Khan DCP North District Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 3/15 Authority letter of Ex. PW1/B legal proceedings on behalf of EIPR.
Recovery of Ex. PW1/C
counterfeit products
from the possession
of accused
Arrest memo of Ex. PW1/D
accused
2. PW2 Sh. Surender Authorization letter Ex. PW2/A
Kumar of legal proceedings
on behalf of EIPR
and his statement
recorded by the IO
Counterfeit products Ex. PW2/B
were seized vide
memo
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
8. Before I proceed with the adjudicatory evaluation of material available on record and comment upon the merits, I deem it appropriate to take on record the brief testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
COMPLAINANT SH. SHABAD KHAN
9. As deposed by the PW1/Shabad Khan, that in the year 2016, he was working as Investigator, EIPR India Pvt. Ltd having its office at 1-E/19-C, Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi. He was authorized to find out counterfeit products of M/s LUK (SCHAEFFLER GURUP). During course of his work, he came to know about the some retailers / suppliers are deliberately Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 4/15 indulging themselves in the manufacture, sell and distribution of counterfeit products of abovesaid company. Thereafter, he made complaint, Ex. PW1/A in this regard to DCP, North District, Delhi.
Thereafter, no action was taken on his complaint and he moved an application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC and on the said application, directions were passed by the Court for registration of the present FIR. Thereafter, he was authorized to undertake legal proceedings on behalf of EIPR vide authority letter, Ex. PW1/B. During investigation, he participated with the IO for recovery of counterfeit products. However, he did not remember the date, place, month and year when he participated with the IO. The recovery of counterfeit products was effected in his presence by the IO. He did not remember the name of the person and the address from where the counterfeit products were recovered vide seizure memo, Ex. PW1/C. Said document was prepared by the IO and he only put his signature on the same. He also did not remember if counterfeit product of any other company was also recovered from the spot.
The arrest memo of accused, Ex. PW1/D correctly identified the signature of accused by witness. Witness submitted, that he could not identify the person from whose possession the counterfeit products were recovered. The case property in sealed pulanda with the seal of 'DK', Ex. PW1/C was correctly identified by the witness. Case property, Ex. P1 (colly) Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 5/15 This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State as the witness was resiling from his previous statement. This witness submitted, that he could not say if the raid was conducted on 01.02.2018. He admitted the suggestion, that the raid was conducted in the area of Kashmere Gate, however, he did not remember the exact address of the shop where the raid was conducted. He also did not remember if the person, namely, Sh. Surender Kumar, AR of TATA Motors participated with them in the raid. He did not remember, if the raiding team was consisting of ASI Dharambir, Ct. Maan Chand, Ct. Manish Kumar and Ct. Pradeep Kumar.
He admitted the suggestion, that no public persons participated in the raid. He could not say if the raid was conducted at shop no. 1098, Ground Floor, Kashmere Gate and could not say if the name of the shop owner was Ram Parkash Ahuja. He denied the suggestion, that the recovery was effected from the shop of accused Ram Parkash Ahuja and counterfeit products of LUK company were recovered from his possession. He could not say if the counterfeit products of TATA Motors were also recovered from the spot of recovery. He denied the suggestion, that the duplicate logo and packaging material were recovered from accused. He also did not remember that total eight pulandas were prepared by the IO and what were their respective serial numbers.
He did not remember if the seal of 'SB' was affixed on the sealed pulandas. He admitted the suggestion, that one person was arrested in his presence, however, he could not say if the said Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 6/15 person was accused.
Witness failed to identify the accused.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
PW2 SH. SURENDER KUMAR
10. As deposed by the PW2/Sh. Surender Kumar, that in the year 2016, he was working as Investigator, EIPR India Pvt. Ltd having its office at 1-E/19-C, Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi. He was authorized to find out counterfeit products of M/s LUK (SCHAEFFLER GURUP). During course of his work, he came to know about the some retailers / suppliers are deliberately indulging themselves in the manufacturing, selling and distribution of counterfeit products of abovesaid company. Thereafter, he moved an application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of FIR and by the order of Court his search warrant was issued. Thereafter, he was authorized to undertake legal proceedings on behalf of EIPR vide authority letter, Ex. PW2/A. During investigation, he participated with the IO and Shabad Khan for recovery of counterfeit products. However, he did not remember the date, place, month and year when he participated with the IO. The recovery of counterfeit products was effected in his presence by the IO. He did not remember the name of the person and the address from where the counterfeit products were recovered. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement and put his signatures, Ex. PW2/A. Counterfeit products were seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW2/B. Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 7/15 The case property in sealed pulanda bearing seal of 'DK', an exhibited as Ex. PW2/B was not identified by this witness due to lapse of time.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State as the witness was resiling from his previous statement. This witness submitted, that he could not say if the raid was conducted on 01.02.2018. He admitted the suggestion, that the raid was conducted in the area of Kashmere Gate, however, he did not remember the exact address of the shop where the raid was conducted. He did not remember, if the raiding team was consisting of ASI Dharambir, Ct. Maan Chand, Ct. Manish Kumar, Ct. Pradeep Kumar and Ct. Rajinder.
He admitted the suggestion, that no public persons participated in the raid. He could not say if the raid was conducted at shop no. 1098, Ground Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and could not say if the name of the shop owner was Ram Parkash Ahuja. He denied the suggestion, that the recovery was effected from the shop of accused Ram Parkash Ahuja and counterfeit products of Tata Motors Ltd were recovered from his possession. He could not say if the counterfeit products of LUK Motors were also recovered from the spot of recovery.
He denied the suggestion, that the duplicate logo and packaging material were recovered from accused. He also did not remember that total three pulandas were prepared by the IO and what were their respective serial numbers. He did not remember if the seal of 'SB' was affixed on the sealed pulandas. He admitted the suggestion, that one person was arrested in his Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 8/15 presence, however, he could not say if the said person was accused.
Witness failed to identify the accused.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 25.04.2024, on the submissions of Ld. APP for the State.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON
11. Statements of the accused has been recorded in terms of provisions of Section 313. He stated, that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused opted not to lead evidence. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. Final arguments have been heard. Records have been perused and considered.
13. The Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused, submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated. Ld. Counsel for accused has pleaded for the acquittal of the accused with further submission that the complainant has failed to identify the accused persons and lend credence to the case of the prosecution.
Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 9/15EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE
14. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case, prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. The burden of proof in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. If any doubt arises, benefit of the same goes in favour of accused. In the present case, accused has denied the allegations and tendered explanation that he has been falsely implicated and nothing as alleged were recovered from his possession.
15. In order to prove its case, prosecution has presented and examined PW1/Shabad Khan and PW2/Surender Kumar as key witnesses. However, during their testimonies, they failed to identify the accused and further did not support the case of the prosecution in its material particulars.
16. At the outset, it is observed that the entire case of the prosecution against the present accused is based upon the alleged raid conducted on their shops which led to alleged recovery of counterfeit articles.
17. PW1 complainant and PW2 Surender Kumar stated in their examination-in-chief, that they did not remember the date, month Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 10/15 and year when they participated with the IO in the raid. They could not give the names of the persons / officials who were comprising of the raiding team and had further deposed, that they cannot even give details of the addresses where the alleged raid was conducted. It is further not out of place to mention, that the complainant also could not depose if any counterfeit product qua which present complaint was made was recovered from the shop of accused. These witness were cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State and the relevant excerpts of their cross examination to this effect are as under:
"I cannot say if the raid was conducted on 01.02.2018 and the raiding team was comprising of ASI Dharambir, Ct. Maan Chand, Ct. Manish Kumar, Ct. Pradeep and Ct. Rajinder. I cannot say if the raid was conducted at shop no. 1098, Ground Floor, Kashmere Gate or that the name of the owner of the said shop was Ram Parkash Ahuja. I cannot say if the counterfeit products pertaining to Tata Motor was recovered from the shop of said accused Ram Parkash Ahuja."
18. It is apposite to note, that the PW2 has miserably failed even to recall the particulars of the recovered case property despite being shown with the seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. The relevant excerpts of his cross examination is as under:
"At this stage, witness is shown seizure memo Ex. PW2/B and submitted that due to lapse of time, he is unable to recall the particulars of the recovered case property due to lapse of time."Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 11/15
19. Not only this, the PW1 and PW2 further did not remember the seal that was applied to the recovered case property and the relevant excerpts of his cross examination is as under:
"I cannot say if the seal of 'SB' was applied on the recovered case property."
20. It is apposite to note, that the PW1 and PW2 categorically denied the suggestion regarding the raid at shop no. 1098, Ground Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, and was conducted at the disclosure of accused. It is pellucid to note, that the PW1 and PW2 even did not remember the facet of their being a participant to the raid conducted at the shop or that a person namely ASI Dharambir, Ct. Maan Chand, Ct. Manish Kumar, Ct. Pradeep and Ct. Rajinder, were a part of the raiding team. Further, PW2 did not remember if the articles mentioned in seizure memo Ex. PW2/B were recovered from the alleged shop in question.
21. Interestingly, in the present case even the identity of the accused does not stand proved as PW1 and PW2 could not identify him due to lapse of time.
22. It is further observed, that as per the charge-sheet, no public person was joined by the police officials to witnesses the alleged recovery from the accused. The shops of the accused persons are located in a thickly populated area where a number of public persons, such as shopkeepers and customers, were already present. The fact that the said area is frequented by public persons and the raid was conducted during day time, makes the absence of public persons as witness to the alleged recovery a Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 12/15 critical factor which raises serious doubts over the alleged recovery. The entire story of the prosecution is silent regarding any kind of videography/photography of the proceedings being done by the members of the raiding party.
23. It is pertinent to mention, that in the present matter IO SI Ajay Kumar has not been examined as the complainant themselves have not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, Ld. APP for the State had dropped the examination of the IO in the present matter.
24. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear, that the testimony of the complainant is totally non-supportive of the case of the prosecution as the complainant and PW2 firstly could not identify the accused.
Secondly, the PW2/Surender Kumar could not identify the case property that was produced in the court.
Thirdly, PW1 Complainant and PW2 also did not know as to what counterfeit product was recovered from which shop and from whom.
Fourthly, the complainant signed all the documents only at the instance of IO and he did not go through the contents of those documents before putting his signatures. Further, complainant had never visited the spot of recovery and he did not remember the shop number and its exact address. Therefore, the entire testimony of the complainant is not in consonance with the story of the prosecution and therefore, cannot be relied upon for proving the case of the prosecution.
Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 13/1525. At this stage, court further deems it fit to state, that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, that culpability cannot be established on surmises and conjectures but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact, that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused. In the present case, it is pellucid, that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes as there are numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses examined by prosecution.
CONCLUSION
26. Therefore, in the teeth of the above analyses, it can be safely culled out that case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes as there are numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses examined by prosecution.
27. In view of the above examination of the evidence and material available on record, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt of which the accused faced the trial. Therefore, accused namely, RAM PARKASH AHUJA, is hereby acquitted of the offences of which they faced the trial U/s 63 of Copy Right Act & 103/104 of Trade Mark Act.
28. Bail bonds in terms of Section 437A Cr.PC has already been obtained from the accused and in compliance of the Cr Case No. 9769/2019 FIR No. 465/2016 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 14/15 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in " State Vs Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I A.D (Del.) 389" the same shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment.
Announced in the open Court today Digitally
signed by
RICHA
i.e. 26.07.2024 RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA
Date:
2024.07.26
16:05:04
+0530
(RICHA SHARMA)
ACJM-01(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/ DELHI
Cr Case No. 9769/2019
FIR No. 465/2016
PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Parkash Ahuja Page 15/15