Bangalore District Court
State By Upparpete Police Station vs His Statement Under Sec.313 Of Cr.P.C on 20 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 20th day of August 2015
Present : Shri J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 2436/2014
2.Date of Offence 18-11-2013
3.Complainant State by Upparpete Police Station
4.Accused Sri. Kamalesh, S/o. Deep Chand,
Aged about 30 years, No.7/2,
2nd Floor, Gokulam Building,
27th Cross, Killari Road,
Bangalore-560053.
5. Offences complained Under Sections 51(B), (1) 63 of
of Copyright Act 1947.
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused acquitted
8.Date of Order 20-8-2015
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Upparpet Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for
the offences punishable under section 51(b), (1) and 63 of
Copyright Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
18-11-2013 at 3-00 p.m., in shop No.15 of Bajaj Complex
2 C.C.No.2436/2014
Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore within the limits of Upparpet Police
Station the accused being the owner of said shop was found in
possession and selling of counterfeit/duplicate charger and
adopter in the name of Canon Company over which EIPR
group of companies had copyright, and thereby infringed the
copyright of said company and further the accused was selling
the same as if the said products supplied by copyright holder
company and cheated the general public as well as copyright
holder company and committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused is on bail. On receipt of chargesheet, this
court took cognizance of the offence and furnished the copies
of the prosecution papers to the accused. After hearing on
charge, this court framed the charge for the offence
punishable section 63 of Copyright Act and section 420 of IPC
for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has not
examined any witnesses and has not marked any documents.
Since C.Ws.1 to 8 did not turn up before this court, by
rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP, this court dropped the said
witnesses.
5. Since, there is no incriminating evidence against the
accused, his statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed
with.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. As stated above, the prosecution to prove the guilt
against the accused has not examined any witnesses on
3 C.C.No.2436/2014
record. The order sheet indicating that, on 05/09/2014
charge has been framed. Thereafter, summons has been
issued on three occasions, bilabial warrant has been issued on
one occasion and non bilabial warrant has been issued on
three occasions even through commissioner of police.
Unfortunately, the concerned police have not secured the
presence any witnesses before the court. The shara made by
the concerned police dated 20/02/2015 indicating that,
process police duly served summons to C.W.2 and C.W.3.
C.W.4 was on night duty and C.Ws.5 and 6 were deputed to
Yalahanka for special duty, as such the process police could
not serve summons to C.Ws.5 and 6. Since the process police
entrusted bandobast duty, he could not serve summons to
other witnesses. Accordingly, he prayed time to serve
summons to the witnesses. Further the shara-dated
28/04/2015 indicating that, the process police duly served
summons to CWs.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Further he served
summons to C.W.1 through telephone. Since C.W.8 is on
leave, and since C.W.7 is resident of out side the state the
process police prayed time to serve the summons to them.
Though the summons has been duly served upon C.Ws.2 to 6
they have not at all appeared before the court. Even before
the dates of shara and thereafter, sufficient opportunities have
been given to the concerned police to secure the presence of
the witnesses but the concerned police have not secured the
presence of the any witnesses before the court. Though this
court repeatedly issued bailable warrant, non bailable warrant
to the all the witnesses even through commissioner of police,
the concerned police for the reason best known to them have
4 C.C.No.2436/2014
not secured presence of any witnesses before the court. In
my opinion, the concerned police have ignored their
responsibility. Since this case is of the year 2014, in the
interest of speedy justice to the accused by rejecting the
prayer of Learned Sr.APP., examination of C.Ws.1 to 8
dropped. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for benefit of
doubt. The properties spurious 1 or 2 charges and 2 adopters
are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is
over. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under section 63 of Copyright Act and section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offences.
His bail bond and suety bond stands cancelled.
Office to issue direction to police to deposit the said properties forthwith.
(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 20th day of August 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
5 C.C.No.2436/2014ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS 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.6 C.C.No.2436/2014
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under section 63 of Copyright Act and section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offences.
His bail bond and suety bond stands cancelled. Office to issue direction to police to deposit the said properties forthwith.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.