Bangalore District Court
State By Madivala Police Station vs Nos.1 To 3 And In Front Of Best Time Center on 13 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 13th day of October 2015
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. 30375/2010
2.Date of Offence 24-12-2009
3.Complainant State by Madivala Police Station
4.Accused 1.Farooq S/o Mehboob, aged 26
years, Near Ayisha Masjid,
Mangammanapalya, Bangalore.
2. Yusef (Split up)
3. Rizwana (Split up)
4. Parvizkhan S/o. Basheerkhan,
aged 24 years, Near Khazama
masjid, Mangammanapalya,
Bangalore.
5. Abdul Jelal S/o. Abdul Raheem,
aged 35 years, N.36, 1st Cross, 'A'
Block, Subhashnagar, Singasandra,
Bangalore.
6. Wahidkhan S/o. Rafeeqkhan,
aged 22 years, C/o.Wahid, 1st Cross,
Subhashnagar, Singasandra
Bangalore.
2 C.C.No.30375/2010
7. Kaleel S/o. Abdul
Rehman, aged 48 years, BPL Mary
Church, Hosur Road, Bannupalya,
Bommanahalli, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained Under Sections 52(A) and 68(A) of
of Copyright Act and Sec.292 of IPC.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 13-10-2015
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Madiwala Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused
Nos.1, 4 to 7 for the offences punishable U/s.52(A), 68(A) of
Copyright Act and Sec.292 of IPC. It appears, during the
pendency of this proceeding, the accused Nos.2 and 3 did not
turn up before the court, hence vide order dated 26-11-2011
and 22-8-2013 this case against accused Nos.2 and 3 was
split up and registered separate case in C.C.32222/2014
which is pending on the file of this court for consideration.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
24-12-2009 in front of Suhel Beeda shop on foot path, the
accused Nos.1 to 3 and in front of Best Time center, Begur
cross, Bommanahalli on foot path the accused No.4 to 6 were
3 C.C.No.30375/2010
found in possession and selling of pirated DVDs, MP3s and
obscene CDs which did not contain the name and address of
the person who has made the sound recording, the name and
address of the owner of the copyright is such work and the
year of its publication, the certificate issued under
Cinematography Act 1952 granted by the board of film
certification, the name and address of the person who has
made the video film and a declaration by him that he has
obtained necessary license or consent from the owner of the
copyright in such work for making such video film and the
name and address of the owner of the copyright in such work
without obtaining any license or permission from the copyright
holder of different language films and songs i.e., I.M.I
members company and accused No.7 was selling the same to
the accused Nos.1 to 6 and thereby committed aforesaid
offences.
3. The accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 are on bail. On receipt of
chargesheet this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
Nos.1, 4 to 7. After hearing on charges, this court framed the
charge for the offences punishable U/s.68(A) Copyright Act
and Sec.292 of IPC., and questioned the accused Nos.1, 4 to 7
regarding the charge made against them, they denied the
charge and claimed to be tried.
4 C.C.No.30375/2010
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has not
examined any witnesses. C.Ws.1 to 8 did not turn up before
this court, hence by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP.,
this court dropped the examination of C.Ws.1 to 8.
5. Since, there is no incriminating evidence against the
accused Nos.1, 4 to 7, their statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is
dispensed with.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove the guilt against accused
Nos.1, 4 to 7 has not examined any witnesses. The order sheet
indicating that on 18-6-2014 charge was framed and
thereafter summons has been issued on five occasions,
bailable warrant has been issued on two occasions, non-
bailable warrant has been issued on three occasions even
through commissioner of police. Unfortunately, the concerned
police have not secured the presence of any witnesses before
the court.
8. The shara dated 29-9-2014 made by the concerned
police indicating that the process police served summons to
C.W.1 by way of affixture as his house door was locked when
he visited for service. Further the shara dated 4-2-2015
indicating that the process police served summons to C.Ws.1
5 C.C.No.30375/2010
to 6 and 9 to their office. He could not locate the address of
C.Ws.7 and 8. Further the shara dated 7-4-2015 indicating
that when process police visited the address of C.W.1, his
house door was locked and as such he affixed copy of the
summons on the outer part of the door. He served summons
to C.Ws.2 to 6 and 9 through SHO of their Police Station. He
could not locate the address of C.Ws.7 and 8. Further the
shara dated 27-5-2015 indicating that when process police
visited the address of C.W.1, he was not in the station and as
such he informed the summons of this case to his family
members. The process police served summons to C.Ws.2 to 5
through e-mail. He could not locate the address of C.Ws.7
and 8. Further he served summons to C.W.9 through phone.
Further the shara dated 20-6-2015 indicating that he affixed
the copy of summons to the C.W.1 on the outer part of his
house as his house was locked when he visited for service and
also informed C.W.1 through mobile phone. He served
summons to C.Ws.3 to 5 and 9 through SHO of their Police
Station. Since C.W.2 transferred he could not locate his
address. Further he could not locate the address of C.Ws.7
and 8. He served summons to C.Ws.2 to 6 and 9 through
SHO of their Police Station. He could not locate the address of
C.Ws.7 and 8. Further the shara dated 27-11-2015 indicating
that when process police visited the address of C.Ws.1 to 6
and 9 he was not available for service and as such the process
police informed them regarding summons of this case through
6 C.C.No.30375/2010
phone. The process police could not locate the address of
C.W.4.
9. It is pertinent to note here that this court is facing
very difficulty particularly in the matter of service of process
and execution of warrants to the witnesses and also the
accused through concerned police. It is no need to say that
this court is designated court to deal with the copyright cases.
The charge sheet in this case is filed by the Madiwal Police
Station. The court police who have been entrusted to attend
the court work not promptly attending the process of this
court. It is the routine work of this court that on each and
every dates particularly when the matter posted for evidence
that this court use to call the concerned police to give direction
to attend the process to the witnesses but in no single hearing
dates except few court polices not at all promptly attending the
process of the court. The SHO or any police officers of Madival
Police Station and also other Police stations particularly in
copyright cases not at all taking any interest in monitoring the
cases registered under Copyright Act except obtaining cc
number. Once they obtains cc number they will not show any
interest in prosecuting in this case and even the Investigating
Officers who investigated the matter though working within
the Bangalore city not showing interest to give evidence before
the court. It appears totally almost all the Police stations are
negligent in dealing with the copyright cases. Further in no
7 C.C.No.30375/2010
occasion the SHO or any other responsible police officers
approached this court in the matter of service of either
summons to the witnesses or execution of the warrant to the
accused persons. Totally, this court can say that the Madiwal
Police Station has ignored the responsibility of service of
summons bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant to the
witnesses and that is the reason why, this court is disposing
this matter without recording the evidence of any witnesses.
Admittedly, this case is pending from the year 2010.
Therefore, in the interest of speedy justice to the accused
persons by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP.,
examination of C.Ws.1 to 8 dropped. Accordingly, the
prosecution has failed to prove guilt against accused Nos.1, 4
to 7 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, said accused
persons are entitled for benefit of doubt. In the result, I
proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 for the offences under Sections 68(A) of the Copyright Act, and Sec.292 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bond stands cancelled.
8 C.C.No.30375/2010Office to retain the entire case papers and seized properties if any in split up case registered against accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.32222/2014 pending on the file of this court.
(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 13th day of October 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS 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.
9 C.C.No.30375/2010Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 for the offences under Sections 68(A) of the Copyright Act, and Sec.292 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bond stands cancelled.
Office to retain the entire case papers and seized properties if any in split up case registered against accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.32222/2014 pending on the file of this court.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
10 C.C.No.30375/2010