Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Verma on 13 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ KUMAR SINGH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02
CENTRAL DISTRICT AT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 23/2017
CNR No.DLCT020077432019
PS: Kashmere Gate
State Vs. Amit VErma
U/s: 63 CR Act & 104 TM Act
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 4341/19
(b) Date of offence 17.03.2018
(c) Complainant Sh. Krishan Gopal
(d) Accused Amit Verma S/o Sh. Ram Lal
Verma R/o H. No. 1/5392, Gali
No. 14, Balbir Nagar Extn.,
Shahdara, Delhi-32.
(e) Offence 63 CR Act and 103/104 TM Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of Institution 18.03.2019
(I) Date when judgment 13.10.2023
was reserved
(j) Date of judgment 13.10.2023
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present case u/s 63 CR Act and 104 TM Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.03.2018 at unknown time, at Shop. No. 774, Ground Floor, Chabi Ganj, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, accused was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious auto parts and packaging materials of FIR No. 32/17 PS : Kashmere Gate State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 1 of 6 Mahindra & Mahindra kept for the purpose of sale bearing the falsified trademarks and thereby violated the copyright of the complainant company and thereby tried for offence punishable under Section 63 Copyright Act and 104 Trademark Act and within cognizance of this Court.
3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused in the Court. Copy of chargesheet and other scrutable documents were supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC. Thereafter charge under Section 63 Copyright Act and 104 Trademark Act was framed against accused vide order dated 07.02.2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined two witness i.e. Sh. Amit Kumar Raghav as PW-1 and Sh. Krishan Gopal complainant as PW-2.
5. PW-1/Amit Kumar Raghav deposed that he was working as Sr. Legal Manager with Mahindra & Mahindra. He had worked with Mr. Viren Popli who was Chief Operating officer in Swaraj Division and he had seen him writing and signing in usual course of business. He proved notarized copy of letter of authority issued by Mr. Viren Popli to EIPR India Pvt. Ltd. where he correctly identifies the signatures of Mr. Viren Popli at point A. The letter of authority is Ex. PW1/A and the notarized copy of certificate of training issued by Mr. Viren Popli to employees of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd. where he correctly identifies the FIR No. 32/17 PS : Kashmere Gate State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 2 of 6 signatures of Mr. Viren Popli at point A. The letter of authority is Ex. PW1/B (colly).
6. PW-2/Krishan Gopal deposed that I did not want to say anything in the present case as he had already left the company and he had no instruction from the complainant company.
7. During recording of examination in chief of PW-1, Ld. APP for State sought permission to cross-examine the witness/PW-2 as the witness was resiling from his previous statement. The permission was granted.
8. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, PW-2 denied that it is correct that he was working with M/s EIPR India Pvt. Ltd. as Investigation Officer. It is also correct that he had moved complaint dated 22.04.2016 to DCP North regarding selling of duplicate articles of complainant company by unknown persons. It is correct that his complaint is Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. He denied the suggestion that pursuant to his complaint on 17.03.2018, he went to office of DIU and gave information that some persons are selling duplicate articles of complainant company in the market of Kashmere Gate area. He denied the suggestion that IO shared the information with the senior officials and took permission to conduct raid. He denied the suggestion that IO constituted a raiding team consisting of him, ASI Mam Chand, Ct. Munish, Ct. Rajinder, Driver HC Jagdish and IO. He denied the suggestion that they left the office of DIU in Government vehicle bearing No. DL1MC 4581. He FIR No. 32/17 PS : Kashmere Gate State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 3 of 6 denied the suggestion that they reached near Chabi Ganj market road where they met his sources and IO verified the information from them also. He denied the suggestion that IO requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation and recovery proceedings but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addressed. Due to paucity of time, no notice could be served those public persons. He denied the suggestion that thereafter, they went to shop No. 774, Ground floor, Chabi Ganj, Kashmere Gate, where one person found sitting whose name was revealed as Amit Verma. He denied the suggestion that IO told the purpose of visit to Amit Verma. He denied the suggestion that search was conducted inside the said shop and during search duplicate auto parts and packaging material of complainant company was recovered. He denied the suggestion that he identified them to be fake. He denied the suggestion that accused Amit Verma could not produce any bill/authorized documents qua the recovered articles. He denied the suggestion that IO kept the articles in three sacks and sealed the same with the seal of SB. He denied the suggestion that IO seized the pullandas vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point A. He volunteered that he had signed some documents at the instance of police officials. He denied the suggestion that IO arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/C bearing his signature at point A. He denied the suggestion that personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/D bearing his signature at point A. He denied the suggestion that thereafter, they returned to PS Kashmere Gate and IO deposited the case property in the malkhana of PS Kashmere Gate. He denied the suggestion that thereafter they FIR No. 32/17 PS : Kashmere Gate State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 4 of 6 reached office of DIU and IO recorded his statement. Attention of witness was drawn towards accused Amit Verma who was standing in the Court but the witness fails to identify the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the accused. MHC (M) had produced one open sack in which the unsealed and torn pullandas were kept. The pullanda was opened with the permission of Court. From the pullanda packaging material of complainant company and auto parts were taken out and shown to the witness but the witness fails to identify the same to be recovered from possession of accused. The case property is Ex. P1 (colly.). He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the case property. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not disclosing true facts of the case as he had been won over by accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to save the accused from criminal liability.
9. During the prosecution evidence, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-2 i.e. complainant/star witness is not supporting the case of prosecution and resiling from his previous statement and no incriminating material has been eXtracted in the cross- eXamination of aforesaid witness and the witness has been turned hostile in toto.
10. The prosecution evidence was closed and recording of statement of accused was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.
FIR No. 32/17 PS : Kashmere Gate State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 5 of 6
11. Perusal of records reveals that the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel are not baseless. Testimony of complainant Krishan Gopal is most crucial for the offence u/s 63CR Act and 104 TM Act. As per the version of prosecution, complainant is the eye witness of the incident. However, during his testimony, he resiled from his earlier statement and stated that he cannot identify the case property as there is no other eye witness of the incident to establish the identity of case property, offence u/s 63 CR Act and 104 TM Act could not be proved against the accused.
12. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof. In absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused on record, accused namely Amit Verma is hereby acquitted of the charges U/s 63 CR Act and 103/104 TM Act levelled against him.
13. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Announced and Signed in the Open Court on 13th October, 2023 ANUJ Digitally signed by ANUJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.10.31 SINGH 21:47:05 +0530 (Anuj Kumar Singh) ACMM-02(Central)/THC/Delhi FIR No. 32/17 PS : Kashmere Gate State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 6 of 6