Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh Dhawan on 25 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANSI MALIK
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT02-027573-2018
Case No. 12122/2018
FIR No. 142/2016
PS - Kashmere Gate
State Vs. Rajesh Dhawan
JUDGMENT
(a) Case No. 12122/2018 (b) Date of offence 23.03.2016 (c) Complainant Krishan Gopal, AR of Tata Motors
Ltd., Mahindra & Mahindra, Maruti Company & Investigator Officer of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd.
(d) Accused Rajesh Dhawan,
S/o late Sh. H.L. Dhawan,
R/o H. No. B-21, Ashoka Niketan,
Block AD, Delhi-92
(e) Offence u/s 63 Copyright Act & 103/104
Trademark Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not Guilty
(g) Final Order Acquittal
(h) Date of Institution 29.08.2018
(i) Date when judgment was 25.03.2026
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 25.03.2026
FIR No.142/16 State Vs Rajesh Dhawan PS Kashmere Gate Page No. 1 of 4 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.03.25
15:24:43
+0530
BRIEF FACTS
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.03.2016 at time unknown, at Shop no. 1098, Shiv Motor Market, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, accused was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious products bearing falsified trademark of "Tata" as detailed in seizure memo and thereby violated the Copyright and Trademark of the complainant company. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 63 Copyright Act & 103/104 Trademark Act.
2. On the basis of a complaint, FIR was registered. After carrying out usual investigation, chargesheet was filed. Accused was summoned. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, charge u/s 63 Copyright Act & 103/104 Trademark Act was framed against accused on 06.07.2019.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution summoned the complainant Sh. Kishan Gopal but during his examination in the court as PW-1, the complainant failed to depose as per the prosecution version. Therefore, he was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State but even after his cross-examination by Ld. APP, he failed to depose as per the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused as well as the case property. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences punishable u/s 63 Copyright Act & 103/104 Trademark Act. Accordingly, PE was closed. Since no incriminating evidence came FIR No.142/16 State Vs Rajesh Dhawan PS Kashmere Gate Page No. 2 of 4 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.03.25 15:25:04 +0530 against accused, therefore, his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
4. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION
5. In order to prove its case, it was essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious products and its packaging material bearing falsified trademark of "Tata" as detailed in the seizure memo. However, as PW-1 has failed to identify the accused as well as the case property, it could not have been proved that counterfeit and spurious products were recovered from the accused. Hence, the complaint remained unproved. Thus, there is nothing incriminating on record qua accused.
6. The entire case was rooted on the testimony of the complainant/eye witness examined as PW-1 who did not depose regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of alleged offence. Hence, no purpose would be served by examining the remaining witnesses. There is no other incriminating evidence against the accused on record. The onus to substantiate the case is upon the prosecution. In the present case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
7. It has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab FIR No.142/16 State Vs Rajesh Dhawan PS Kashmere Gate Page No. 3 of 4 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.03.25 15:25:24 +0530 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court :-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
8. As a cumulative effect of the above said discussion, this Court is of considered view that a reasonable shadow of doubt is cast upon the prosecution version. Accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accused Rajesh Dhawan is accordingly acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
9. Requirements of Section 437A Cr.P.C. be complied with. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.03.25
15:25:39
+0530
Announced in the open court
on 25th March, 2026 (Mansi Malik)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02 Central/THC/Delhi FIR No.142/16 State Vs Rajesh Dhawan PS Kashmere Gate Page No. 4 of 4