Delhi District Court
State vs . Swinder Pal Singh on 29 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH: ACMM-02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. Swinder Pal Singh
New Case No: 301289/16
FIR N0. : 301/05
U/S : Section 103/104 Trade Mark Act
PS : Kashmere Gate
Date of Institution : 10.04.2006
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 29.01.2019
Date of Judgment : 29.01.2019
JUDGMENT
1. FIR No. of the case : 301/2005
2. Date of commission of offence : 06.06.2005
3. Name of the accused : Swinder Pal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Hargobind Singh
R/o H. No. 45-E, Ashoka
Avenue, Sainik Farm, Delhi-
110062.
4. Offence complained of : Section 103/104 Trade Mark
Act.
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final order : Acquittal
FIR No . 301/2005 State Vs Swinder Pal Singh. PS Kashmere Gate Page No. 1 of 5
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2005 at M/s Suri Sales Corporation, 142, Guru Nanak Auto Market, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, accused Swinder Pal Singh was found in possession of 38 Timing Belts duly packed in cardboard boxes, 25 Timing Belts unpacked, 50Pcs of empty in cardboard boxes all bearing the having falsified trademark of DAYCO of the complainant company and you were possessing the said articles for the purpose of sale and thus accused has thereby committed offences punishable u/s 103/104 of Trade Marks Act.
2. On the basis of a complaint, present FIR was registered. After carrying out the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Accused was summoned. After compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C, charge under Section 103/104 of Trade Mark Act was framed against accused on 20.07.2015.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE FIR No . 301/2005 State Vs Swinder Pal Singh. PS Kashmere Gate Page No. 2 of 5
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined only one witness in total.
4. PW-1 ASI Vijender Singh deposed that on 06.06.2005, he was posted as Duty officer at PS Kashmere Gate. He received rukka from Ct. Rajbir Singh sent by SI Suraj Prasad for registration of case and on the basis of rukka, he recorded FIR No. 301/05 which is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. He made endorsement on Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. This witness was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity being given.
5. PE was ordered to be closed as the complainant Manjit Singh who was repeatedly summoned as many as 15 times. However, on each and every date of hearing either complainant Manjit Singh failed to appear or he failed to produce the original documents relied upon by the prosecution. In view of the repeated failure of PW Manjit Singh to appear he was dropped from the list of witnesses. In the absence of testimony of complainant no purpose would have been served in examining the FIR No . 301/2005 State Vs Swinder Pal Singh. PS Kashmere Gate Page No. 3 of 5 remaining formal witnesses. Statement of accused Swinder Pal Singh u/s 313 Cr. P.C was recorded on 29.01.2019 wherein accused has pleaded innocence and he had opted not to lead any defence evidence. Final arguments heard on 29.01.2019.
6. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined only one witness and PE was ordered to be closed as the complainant Manjit Singh who was repeatedly summoned as many as 15 times. However, on each and every date of hearing either complainant Manjit Singh failed to appear or he failed to produce the original documents relied upon by the prosecution. In view of the repeated failure of PW Manjit Singh to appear he was dropped from the list of witnesses. In the absence of testimony of complainant no purpose would have been served in examining the remaining formal witnesses.
FIR No . 301/2005 State Vs Swinder Pal Singh. PS Kashmere Gate Page No. 4 of 5
8. The entire case was rooted on the testimony of the complainant and he is dropped from the list of witnesses. Hence, no purpose would have been served in examining the remaining witnesses. There is no other iota of incriminating evidence against the accused on record. The onus to substantiate the case is upon the prosecution. In the present case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
9. Since the factual matrix of the case has not been proved. I feel no hesitation in stating that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Hence, the accused Swinder Pal Singh is acquitted for the charge framed for the offence U/s Section 103/104 of Trade Mark Act.
10. Ordered accordingly. CHETNA Digitally signed by CHETNA SINGH SINGH Date: 2019.01.31 15:45:10 +0530 Announced in the open court on 29.01.2019 (Chetna Singh) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02 Central/THC/Delhi/29.01.2019 FIR No . 301/2005 State Vs Swinder Pal Singh. PS Kashmere Gate Page No. 5 of 5