Bangalore District Court
State By S.J.Park Police Station vs And Accused Was Selling The Duplicate Hp on 3 January, 2020
1 CC No.25061/17
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2020
Present : Sri.Prakash Channappa Kurubett,
B.Sc., LL.B.(Spl).,
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 25061/2017
2.Date of 05/10/2016
offence
3.Complainant State by S.J.Park Police Station.
4.Accused Pooran Singh Rajputh S/o.Pawar
Singh, Aged about 25 years, R/o.
No.45, Kumbarpet Main Road,
Tigalarapete, Bengaluru.
5. Offences U/Sec. 63 Copy Right Act &
complained of
Sec.420 of IPC.
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted.
8.Date of Order 03/01/2020.
2 CC No.25061/17
REASONS
The Police Inspector of S.J.Park Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused
for the offences punishable U/Sec.63 of Copy Right Act
and Sec.420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on
05/10/2016 at about 3.00 pm, at shop No.24 -
Vinayaka Technologies, 3rd floor, S.J.Park, G.V.Complex,
P.F.Lane, Bengaluru, within the limits of S.J.Park
Police Station, accused person was selling the duplicate
HP Company Laptop batteries, adopters and spare parts
to the public, without obtaining the valid
permission/license from the copyright owner and
infringed the right of the copyright of the said company,
and the same were without there being any authorization
or written consent and accused has wrongful profit and
cheated to the general public. Hence, CW.1-
Mallikarjuna- Police Inspector lodged first information.
3 CC No.25061/17
The Station House Officer registered a case in
Cr.No.143/2016 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 63 of
Copy Right Act and Sec.420 of IPC, and submitted First
Information Report to this Court. After investigation,
Sub-Inspector of S.J.Park Police Station filed charge
sheet for the said offences punishable U/Sec. 63 of Copy
Right Act and Sec.420 of IPC against the accused person.
Hence, he has committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is 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, my learned Predecessor-in-Office
has framed charge for the offences punishable U/Sec. 63
of Copy Right Act and Sec.420 of IPC 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
4 CC No.25061/17
got marked at Ex.P.1, and material objects is marked at
MO.1 and MO.2, and CW.1, CW.3, CW.4, CW.6 to
CW.10 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
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. The PW.1 Uma Shankar.B - Police Inspector
deposed that, on 05/10/2016 when he was on duty, at
that time, Police Inspector - Mallikarjun called himself,
and his staff, HP Company representative - Steephan and
5 CC No.25061/17
panchas, went to the shop of the accused person at
S.P.Road, Vinayaka Technologies, and enquired the
accused, and accused was selling the duplicate HP
Company products i.e. adopters and batteries in his shop
to the public and cheated to the public and infringed the
copyright Act, and drawn panchanama at Ex.P.1 and
seized MO.1 and MO.2 and produced before the
Investigating Officer. He has been cross-examined by the
accused counsel. But from his mouth nothing favouring
the prosecution case.
7. The PW.2 is the Investigation Officer, representative
of of EIPR Limited. He deposed that on 05/10/2016 he
got information that the accused was selling the
duplicate products of HP Company to the public, and he
gave complaint before the police, himself, Umashankar,
Mallikarjuna and staff went to the shop of the accused,
and Police Inspector told him to verify the products, and
he enquired the same, and found that the 74 Laptop
6 CC No.25061/17
duplicate batteries, 28 adopters and enquired the name
of the accused, and Investigating Officer drawn Mahazar
and seized the products. He has been cross-examined by
the accused counsel. But from his mouth nothing
favouring the prosecution case.
8. The PW.1 and PW.2 have not deposed that the
alleged seized products i.e. duplicate 74 Laptop batteries
and 28 adopters were packed, sealed and pasted with a
slip on them having signatures of pancha witnesses and
Investigating Officer. Moreover, there is no legal
evidence to prove that the alleged seized products and
the concerned companies have got copyright over the said
products. Hence, there is no clear, cogent and reliable
evidence to prove the guilt of accused as alleged by the
prosecution. The above evidence creates reasonable
doubt in the prosecution. The benefit of doubt always
goes to accused. Hence, I am of the considered opinion
that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused
7 CC No.25061/17
beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.63 of Copy Right Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused stands cancelled.
The properties seized in PF No.51/16 shall be confiscated to State, after appeal period is over.
(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 3rd day of January, 2020.) (P.C.Kurubett) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1: Uma Shankar.B
PW.2: Steephan Raj.
8 CC No.25061/17
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Panchanama Ex.P.1(a&b): Signatures of PW.1 & 2.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 & 2 : Batteries & adopters.
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. Bengaluru.