Bangalore District Court
State By Halsoor Police Station vs Was Selling The Same To The General ... on 26 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 26th day of February 2016
Present : Shri J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 6819/2013
2.Date of Offence 11-02-2013
3.Complainant State by Halsoor Police Station
4.Accused Santhosh
S/o.Arun Kumar, 19 years,
R/o.No.450, Cauvery Nagara,
Mahadevapura, Bangalore.
5. Offence complained U/Sec. 52(A) and 68(A) of Copy Right
of Act, 1957.
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 26-2-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Halsoor Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for
the offences punishable under section 52(A) and 68(A) Copy
Right Act, 1957.
2 C.C.No.6819/2013
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
11-2-2013 at 2-00 p.m., in front of Vijaya Bank on footpath,
Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore city within the limits of
Ulsoor police station the accused was found in possession and
selling of pirated DVDs of Hindi and Tamil Language films over
which films the Super Cassette Industries had copyright
without thereby being any authorities or written consent from
the copyright holder and said DVDs did not contain the name,
address of the person who has made, the name and address of
the owner of the copyright, the year of its publication, the
accused was selling the same to the general public, as if the
said DVDs are being supplied by the copyright holder
company and thereby cheated general public as well as the
Copyright holder company and committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused is on bail. On receipt of charge sheet, this
court took the cognizance of the offences and furnished the
copies of it to the accused as required under section 207 of
Cr.P.C. After hearing on charges of both counsels, this court
has framed the charge for the offences punishable under
sections 68(A) Copy Right Act 1957 and section 420 of IPC and
questioned, the accused denied the charge and claims to be,
tried.
4. The prosecution to prove guilt against accused has
examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked five
3 C.C.No.6819/2013
documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.5 also marked one material
object as per M.O.1. Since C.Ws.2, 4 and 5 did not turn up
before this court, by rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP, this court
dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused as
required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the
incriminating evidence appeared against him and submitted
that he has no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments of both counsels and
perused the evidence on record.
7. As stated above the prosecution to prove guilt against
accused has examined two witnesses. P.W.1 Puttalingiah is
the PSI who conducted the raid and filed charge sheet. P.W.2
Mayavan is the independent seizure mahazar witness. It
appears in spite of giving sufficient opportunities the
prosecution has not examined another independent seizure
mahazar witness, the police constable who participated in the
raid and the senior executive of Super Cassette Industries who
gave opinion regarding the seized DVDs.
8. The testimony of P.W.1 indicating that on 11-2-2013
at 2-00 p.m. when he and C.W.4 Ganesh his police constable
4 C.C.No.6819/2013
were on patrolling duty on Cambridge Road and when they
reached in front of Vijaya Bank they found one person by
keeping CDs and DVDs on footpath was selling the same. He
visited said place, enquired the said person, and came to know
that the said person has brought the said DVDs from JC road
and selling the same. However, on verification the said DVDs
did not contain the name of the copyright holder, logo and
maximum retail prices. He enquired name of said person and
came to know as Santhosh. Thereafter, he called C.Ws.2 and
3 as panchas and seized 35 DVDs of Hindi and Tamil language
films by preparing the seizure mahazar. He brought the
accused along with seized DVDs to the police station for
further investigation, registered the case in Cr.No.48/13 and
reported seizer of DVDs to the court under PF No.15/13. He
arrested the accused and released him on station bail. He
obtained report regarding DVDs from C.W.5 the senior
executive of Super Cassette Industries and after completion of
investigation has filed charge sheet against accused.
9. P.W.2 Mayavan the independent seizure mahazar
witness has not supported the case of the prosecution.
Though the learned Sr.APP., treated this witness as hostile
and further cross-examined him but noting worth is elicited
from him.
5 C.C.No.6819/2013
10. In the case like this, the offence has to be, proved in
a circumstantial evidence by way of proving the seizure
mahazar of seized DVDs beyond all reasonable doubt. Further
the prosecution has to prove that the seized DVDs did not
contain necessary particulars as required U/s.52(A) of the
Copy Right Act and further member companies of Super
Cassette Industries had Copy Right over Hindi and Tamil
language films of seized DVDs. Further, the prosecution has
to prove that the accused was selling the same in front of
Vijaya Bank Cambridge road on footpath within the limits of
Halusuru P.S. In the instant case, the prosecution to prove
seizure mahazar has examined two witnesses. P.W.1 the
investigation officer who prepared the mahazar though
subjected to cross-examination, but nothing worth elicited
from him, to doubt his testimony. In my opinion, even
though P.W.2 the independent seizure mahazar witness not
supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has
not examined another independent seizure mahazar
witnesses, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of
P.W.1 in the matter of raid, seizure of DVDs by preparing
seizure mahazar at Ex.P.1. Therefore, from the testimony of
P.W.1, I am of the opinion that prosecution has successfully
proved the seizer mahazar of seized DVDs beyond all
reasonable doubt.
6 C.C.No.6819/2013
11. In my further opinion, mere proving the seizure
mahazar is not sufficient to connect the accused for the
offences alleged against him. In order to connect the accused
the prosecution has also to prove that the seized DVDs did not
contain necessary particulars as required U/s.52(A) of Copy
Right Act. It appears, the investigating officer during the
course of trial has obtained report from C.W.5 that the seized
DVDs are pirated. Though the said document is marked
through P.W.1, mere marking is not proof unless the
prosecution examines its author. In the instant case in spite
of giving sufficient opportunities, the prosecution has not
examined C.W.5 who gave report as per Ex.P4. No doubt, this
court can verify the seized DVDs to come to conclusion
whether the said DVDs did contain necessary particulars as
required U/s. 52(A) Copyright, to come such conclusion, seizer
of original DVDs is necessary but it appears the investigation
officer has not seized original DVDs. Therefore, the
prosecution has failed to prove that the seized DVDs did not
contain necessary particulars as required U/s.52(A) of the
Copyright Act.
13. It appears, the investigation officer during the course
of investigation has not collected any documents and has not
examined any witnesses to prove that, the member companies
of Super Cassette Industries had copyright over different
language films of seized DVDs. Further, the prosecution has
7 C.C.No.6819/2013
not examined the adjacent owners of the shops to prove that
the accused was selling the pirated DVDs on the footpath as
on the date of the raid. No doubt P.W.1 has identified the
accused and deposed that the accused was selling the pirated
DVDs, on the footpath, my opinion it is not safe to place the
reliance of sole testimony of P.W.1 to conclude that the
accused was selling the pirated DVDs on the footpath as on
the date of raid, for the reason that P.W.1 being the
investigation officer always interest in out come of his
investigation and the success of prosecution. Therefore,
looking from any angle, I am of the considered opinion that the
evidence on record is in sufficient to conclude that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. In the
result, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under section 68(A) of Copyright Act and Sec.420 IPC.
Hence, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
His bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
8 C.C.No.6819/2013The property seized under P.F.No.15/2013 item Nos.1 to 11 are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(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 26th day of February 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, Puttalingaiah; P.W.2, Mayavan;
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1, Mahazar;
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1;
Ex.P.1(b), Signature of P.W.2;
Ex.P2, Complaint;
Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.1;
Ex.P.3, FIR;
Ex.P.3(a), Signature of P.W.1;
Ex.P.4, Report;
Ex.P.5, Statement of P.W.2,
9 C.C.No.6819/2013
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
M.O.1, DVD; LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND
MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.10 C.C.No.6819/2013
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under section 68(A) of Copyright Act and Sec.420 IPC.
Hence, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
His bail bonds and suety bonds stand cancelled.
The property seized under P.F.No.15/2013 item Nos.1 to 11 are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.