Bangalore District Court
State By S.J.Park Police Station vs And Got Released Him On Bail By Taking ... on 31 May, 2023
1 CC No.26447/2018
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 31st day of May 2023
Present : Sri.R.Mahesha.
B.A.L., LL.B.,
IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
1.C.C.No. 26447/2018
2.Date of offence 15/06/2017
3.Complainant State by S.J.Park Police Station
4.Accused Prakash @ Prakash Poorka Ram
S/o K.R.Patail,
R/at No.438, 5th Cross,
Magadi road, opposite to Jain
temple, Bengaluru.
5. Offences complained of U/s 63 of Copy Right Act and
u/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 31-05-2023
2 CC No.26447/2018
The Police Sub-Inspector of S.J.Park Police Station, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s 63 of Copy Right Act and u/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 15/06/2017 at about 7.30 PM the accused was fraudulently selling duplicate Hewlett Packard (HP) pen drives on the foot path in front of Ganesh Video shop, SP road, Bangalore to the public without obtaining permission from E.I.P.R (India) Pvt.Ltd., company or from copy right company thereby caused loss and violated the copy right act and cheated the public. CW-1 registered a case in Cr No.61/2017 for the offences punishable U/Sec.63 of Copy Right Act and submitted First Information Report to this Court. After investigation, Police Inspector of S.J.Park Police Station filed charge sheet for the offences punishable U/Sec.63 of Copy Right Act and u/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC 3 CC No.26447/2018 against the accused. Hence, accused 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, this Court has framed charge for the offences punishable u/s 63 of Copy Right Act and u/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined 5 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and closed the side of the prosecution evidence, and Statements u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. recorded, read over and explained in the vernacular language of the accused, wherein accused has denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against 4 CC No.26447/2018 him as false and did not choose to lead defence evidence. As such, the matter was posted for arguments.
5. I have heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the entire oral evidence and documents placed on record.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 15/06/2017 at about 5.30 PM accused was selling duplicate pen drive represented in the name of E.I.P.R on footpath, in front of Ganesh vedio shop, S.P road, Bengaluru without obtaining permission from the company nor from the copy right company thereby caused loss to the public and voilated the Copy Right Act and also cheated public by selling duplicate pen drive as original and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 63 of Copy Right Act and u/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC ?
2 ) What order?
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:5 CC No.26447/2018
REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- It is well settled that in a criminal case the entire burden of proof rests upon the prosecution and the accused need to prove nothing. Suffice for the accused to create doubt about the case of the prosecution and the reliability of the witnesses for the prosecution.
9. The main allegation of the prosecution is that, As already stated supra, the prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and also get marked four documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and also marked material object as M.O.1 and M.O.2.
10. The prosecution has been examined CW-7 as PW-1, he being Investigation Officer of this case and CW.4 CW.5 examined as PW.2 and 3 they being raided party along with CW.7. All the above witnesses specifically deposed on oath before this Court that firstly PW.1 stated that on 6 CC No.26447/2018 15/06/2017 at about 5.30 PM, CW.1 came and gave FIS against the accused persons same has received and registered criminal case against the accused persons and he prepared FIR forwarded the same to his higher police officers, FIR copy submitted to the jurisdictional Court for further needful. Further he called panchas and his other his police officers along with he proceeded to SP road, in front of Sri.Ganesha temple and found one person selling HP company pen drives on being enquiry and verification it found that the said pen drives are counterfeit products of HP company. Therefore, they took him to his custody further on eqnuired on him the accused persons stated that they stored some products in Chickpet godown. Accordingly, they proceeded along with accused near godown Chickpet and they also found 40 pen drives in godown Chickpet. He seized all pen drives in the presence of CW.1 to 3 and other police officers. PW.2 and PW3 reiterated the evidence led by PW.1 they all raided parties 7 CC No.26447/2018 along with Cw.7 on 15/6/2017. Further PW.1 stated before this Court that he enquired accused and he recorded the voluntary statements of accused persons and he recorded the statements of CW.1 to 6, he arrested the accused and got released him on bail by taking proper security. He identified Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and MO.1 and Mo.2 and accused who is present before this Court. PW.1 has been subjected cross-examination by the accused. In the cross-examination it is elicited from the mouth of PW.1 that he does not received any complaint from public regarding this incident. Ex.P.1 written by CW.1 and he does not took any neighbours as panchas to Ex.P.1 and he does not issued any written notice to panchas before drawing Ex.P.1. He does not issued any memo to police officers before proceeded to spot. Further he admitted that panchas and other witnesses are not signed on MO.1 and MO.2. The products of Mo.1 and Mo.2 which were easily available in all the shops in open market. Further 8 CC No.26447/2018 he admitted that he does not gave any request letter to HP Company to ascertain the genuinity of the seized products. Further it is elicited in the cross-examination that they seized total pen drives 70 numbers but they produced Mo.1 and Mo.2 and he clearly admitted that he did not produced 70 pen drives before this Court. In the cross- examination of PW.2 and 3 they specifically admitted that CW.7 has not issued any written memo before going to the alleged place of incident. They proceeded to spot at about 12.00 noon. Further PW.3 clearly admitted in the cross- examination that he does not remember actual time for what time he proceeded to spot and he does not remember to say actual boundaries of the alleged place of incident. Further he expressed inability to say actual name and address of accused persons. Further it is admitted by PW.2 and 3 that they seized 70 pen drives but they produced before this Court 69 pen drives. PW.1 to 3 are 9 CC No.26447/2018 denied other formal suggestions made by the accused counsel during the course of cross-examination.
11. Further the prosecution has been examined CW.3 as PW.4. He being panch witness to Ex.P.3 and Field Officer. He specifically deposed on oath before this Court that on 15/6/2017 he signed on Ex.P.3 as per the instructions given by S J Park police at S J Park police station. The police officers does not seized any properties in his presence and he does not know the contents of Ex.P.3 and he does not gave any statement before police officers and he did not saw the accused persons before at any where. The learned Sr.APP has treated the PW.4 as a hostile witness and cross-examined him. But nothing worth has been elicited from him to support the case of the prosecution.
10 CC No.26447/2018
12. Further the prosecution has been examined CW-6 as PW.5. He being Manager in EIPR company. He deposed on oath before this Court that since 14 years he had been working as Manager in EIPR company. In the year 2010 H.P company had given training to find out the original and duplicate products and he has certificate for this regard. Further he deposed that on 20.06.2017 the PSI of S J park police called him to the police station and gave some pen drives and requested to give genuine certificate. Accordingly, he verified and submitted his report as per Ex.P.4. He identified MO.1 and MO.2. He has been subjected cross-examination. In the cross- examination he denied all the material suggestions made by the accused counsel during the course of cross- examination.
13. On perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence it appears that, prosecution has been cited CW.1 to CW.7 11 CC No.26447/2018 out of that, they able to examine PW.1 to 5. It is relevant to note that despite took coercive steps against CW.2 to CW8. The prosecution has failed to secure their presence well in time and therefore CW.2 to CW8 are dropped out vide order dated 30-12-2022. Further it is relevant to note that the learned Sr.APP has filed recall application to recall CW.1 after contest the said application came to be rejected on 16/2/2023. On the sole ground Cw.2 being panch witness is not yet recalled by prosecution. This Court granted sufficient time but prosecution does not challenged order dated 16/2/2023. So order dated 16/2/2023 becomes final. Further it is relevant to note that as per the say of prosecution they seized 70 pen drives from the possession of accused at godown and near footpath S P Road in front of Sri.Ganesha temple. But Investigation Officer has produced only 69 pen drives before this Court. There is no any reference in the prosecution materials, another one pen drive what 12 CC No.26447/2018 happened. Further it is relevant to note that though Cw.6 stated he had certificates and knowledge of assessing original products and duplicate products of H P Company but he did not produced any documents to substantiate he has training certificate and he had knowledge to ascertain products of HP Company to give report. Further it is relevant to note that there is no any reference in the charge sheet materials when cw.6 came and got MO.1 and Mo.2 for his possession for analysis purpose. Further it is also relevant to note that there is no any reference letter in the charge sheet CW.6 returned back MO.1 and 2 to Cw.7 with report. Further it is relevant to note that CW.1 being informant of this case and CW.2 being another panch witness to seizure panchanama despite took coercive steps against them they are not stepped into witness box. Though police officers deposed about the alleged incident after criminal law set into motion non-examination of informant it does not helpful the evidence of police officers 13 CC No.26447/2018 to the case of the prosecution. Further it is relevant to note that CW.3 completely turned hostile he does not support the case of prosecution as well as Ex.P.3 so its also fatal to the case of the prosecution. So admittedly Ex.P.3 is not proved before this Court as prescribed under law. Further iIt is relevant to note that as per Ex.P.3 Cw.7 seized 70 pen drives but he produced 69 pen drives before this Court its creates serious doubt regarding the case of prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this court proceed and pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec. 63 of Copy Right Act and u/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months 14 CC No.26447/2018 from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically.
MO.1 and MO.2 shall be destroyed as worthless after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 31st day of May 2023.) (R.Mahesh) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Santhosh
PW.2 : Chandrashekar
PW.3 : Mruthunjaya
PW.4 : Vijay Kumar
PW.5 : Harish Kumar.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF
OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.3 : Panchanama
Ex.P.4 : Report
15 CC No.26447/2018
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
M.O.1 : 69 pen drives M.O.2 : White colour cloth.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL List of materials marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bengaluru.16 CC No.26447/2018
31/05/2023 (Judgment pronounced in the open court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec. 63 of Copy Right Act and u/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically.
MO.1 and MO.2 shall be destroyed as worthless after the appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bengaluru.17 CC No.26447/2018