Bangalore District Court
State By Shivajinagar Police Station vs Khaleemulla on 12 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 12th day of January 2016
Present : Sri.J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 2090/2012
2.Date of Offence 25-1-2011
3.Complainant State by Shivajinagar Police Station
4.Accused 1. Khaleemulla
S/o. Late Shafiulla, residing at
No.144, Behind Mariyamma Temple,
Nagavara Main Road, Arabik College
Post, Bangalore-45.
2. Syed Tabrez @ Tabrez
S/o. Late Syed Syed Apsar,
Aged 24 Years, No.19, Shabana
Mansion, Anthoniswamy Layout,
Lingarajapuram, Bangalore.
3. Abdul Majeed ( split up)
5. Offences complained U/s.52(A), 68 (A) of Copyright Act.
of
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 and 2 are pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 12-1-2016
2 C.C.No.2090/2012
REASONS
The Inspector of Police, Shivajinagar Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused
Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 52(A)
and 68 (A) of Copyright Act. It appears during the pendency of
this case, since accused No.3 remained absent before the
court, this case against him is split up and registered separate
case in C.C.No.24529/2014 which is pending before this court
for consideration.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
25-1-2011 at 7-45 p.m., in Sangeeth Sagar Cassette shop
situated at No.177/A, D.K. Street, Shivajinagar, within the
limits of Shivajinagar police station, the accused No.2 being
the owner and accused No.1 being the worker of the said shop
were found in possession and selling of pirated DVDs and
MP3s of different language films which did not contain the
name and address of the person who has made, the name and
address of the owner of the copyright, the year of its first
publication without obtaining any license or written consent
from the copyright holder and further the accused persons
were selling the same as if the said DVDs and MP3s are being
supplied by the copyright holder company and thereby
cheated the general public as well as the copyright holder
company and committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are on bail. On receipt of
chargesheet, this court took cognizance of the offences and
3 C.C.No.2090/2012
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
persons. After hearing on charges, this court has framed the
charge for the offence punishable U/s.68(A) of Copyright Act
and section 420 of IPC and questioned the accused persons
regarding the charge made against them, they denied the
charge and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has not
examined any witnesses. Since, C.Ws.1 to 7 did not turn up
before this court, by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP,
this court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Since, the prosecution has not adduced any
incriminating evidence against the accused Nos.1 and 2, their
statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., dispensed with.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The inspector of police, Shivajinagar police station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused
Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 68(A)
of Copyright Act. In this case, on 18-8-2014 charge was
framed, thereafter summons to witnesses issued on three
occasion, non bailable warrant on two occasion to all the
witnesses but the concerned police have not secured the
presence of any witnesses.
4 C.C.No.2090/2012
8. The shara made by the concerned police dated
20-10-2010 indicting that since C.W.1 was on special duty the
process police prayed time to serve summons to him. He
served summons to C.W.2 in person. He could not locate the
address of C.Ws.3 to 5. Since C.Ws.6 and 7 deputed for
special duty, the process police prayed time to serve summons
to them. Further, the shara dated 22-12-2014 indicating that
when process police visited the address of C.Ws.1 he was
informed that CW.1 is on leave and as such, he has not served
summons to him. He could not locate the address of C.W.2, 3
and 5. He served summons to C.W.4 and 6 in person. He
informed C.W.7 to appear before the court to give evidence.
Even though as per said shara summons to C.W.1 to 5 served,
none have appeared before the court. Even before the dates of
above referred 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,
non-bailable warrant, but the concerned police have failed to
secure the presence of any witnesses before the court.
Therefore, it appears the concerned police have ignored their
responsibility. Since this case is of the year 2014, in the
interest of speedy justice to accused persons, by rejecting the
prayer of Sr.APP., examination of C.Ws.1 to 7 dropped.
Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the accused
Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, I proceed
to pass the following:
5 C.C.No.2090/2012
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Section 68(a) of Copyright Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
Office to retain entire case papers of this and seized properties if any in split up case registered against accused No.3 in C.C. 24529/2014.
(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 12th day of January 2016) (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.6 C.C.No.2090/2012
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Section 68(a) of Copyright Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stands cancelled.
The properties seized under PF.No.6/2011 i.e., item No.1 to 5 are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Office to issue direction to concerned police to deposit the said properties forthwith.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.