Bangalore District Court
State By High Grounds Police vs Persons With Common Intention ... on 6 March, 2020
1 CC NO.15920/16
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2020
Present : Sri.Prakash Channappa Kurubett,
B.Sc., LL.B.(Spl).,
IX Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 15920/2016
2.Date of 11/02/205
offence
3.Complainant State by High Grounds Police
Station.
4.Accused 1. Manoj Kumar S/o.Harilal,
Aged about 45 years,
R/No.24/4, Park Road,
Coax Town, Jeevanahalli,
Bengaluru.
2.Nagesh S/o.Veerabhadrappa
Aged about 43 years,
R/No.1377, 6th Cross,
Mahalaxmipura, Bengaluru.
2 CC NO.15920/16
5. Offences U/Sec.420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
complained of & Sec.103 & 104 of Trade
Mark Act.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 & 2 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 & 2 are acquitted.
8.Date of Order 06/03/2020.
REASONS
The Police Sub-Inspector of High Grounds Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused
persons for the offences punishable U/Sec. 420 r/w Sec.34 of
IPC & Sec.103 & 104 of Trade Mark Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the
accused persons with common intention illegally without
authority commenced the business in the name and style as
"Chamundi Silk Sarees" at Bataviya Chambers shop No.8,
Kumara Krupa Road, South End Street, Bengaluru, within
3 CC NO.15920/16
the limits of High Grounds Police Station, dealing with Silk
and Sarees by using the complainant's Trade Mark
Chamundi Silks, infringement of Trade Mark Act, accused
persons not obtained any licence from the Government and
cheated to the Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Limited and
also public, and thereby committed the alleged offences.
Hence, CW.1 - Susindahar Prasad - Manager lodged first
information. The Station House Officer registered a case in
Cr.No.43/2014 for the offences punishable u/Sec. 420 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC & Sec.103 & 104 of Trade Mark Act and
submitted First Information Report to this Court. After
investigation, Sub-Inspector of High Grounds Police Station
filed charge sheet for the said offences punishable u/Sec. 420
r/w Sec.34 of IPC & Sec.103 & 104 of Trade Mark Act against
the accused persons. Hence, they have committed the
alleged offences.
4 CC NO.15920/16
3. Accused persons are on bail. On receipt of charge
sheet, this court took the cognizance of the alleged offences
and furnished copy of the prosecution papers to the accused.
After hearing on charge, this Court has framed charge for
the offences punishable U/Sec.420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and
Sec.103 & 104 of Trade Mark Act for which accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has
examined 2 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and documents got
marked at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and CW.3 to CW.6 did not
turn up in spite of taking coercive steps and hence, they were
dropped by rejected the prayer of the Learned Sr.APP, and
closed the side of the prosecution evidence, and Statements
u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. are recorded, read over and explained
in the vernacular language of the accused, wherein accused
have denied the incriminating circumstances appeared
5 CC NO.15920/16
against them as false and did not choose to lead defence
evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed. As such, the
matter was posted for arguments.
5. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
6. In this case, in order to establish the allegation made
against the accused persons, the prosecution examined the
witnesses such as PW.1 Sushindra Prasad Manager of the
Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Limited, who was the Accounts
Manager deposed that during the year 2015-16 he got
information that the accused persons were doing business
dealing with Silk and Sarees by using the complainant's Trade
Mark Chamundi Silks, infringement of Trade Mark Act, they
were not obtained any licence from the Government and
cheated to the Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Limited and
also public, and hence, he filed complaint at Ex.P.1 against
6 CC NO.15920/16
accused, and police came to the spot and drawn
panchanama at Ex.P.2. The PW.2 Mahazar witness deposed
that police taken his signature on panchanama. Later on,
they turned hostile to the prosecution case. They have been
cross-examined by the accused counsel. But from their
mouths nothing favouring the prosecution case. Hence, I
hold that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused person beyond all reasonable doubt muchless the
ingredients of Sec. 420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC & Sec.103 & 104 of
Trade Mark Act. Consequently, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused Nos.1 and 2 are are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC & Sec.103 & 104 of Trade Mark Act.
7 CC NO.15920/16The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 6th day of March, 2020.) (P.C.KURUBETT) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Sushindra Prasad PW.2 : Narasimha.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1.
8 CC NO.15920/16
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
NIL.
List of documents and materials marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.9 CC NO.15920/16
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused Nos.1 and 2 are are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC & Sec.103 &104 of Trade Marks Act.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.