Delhi District Court
State vs Suhsil Khurana on 24 April, 2026
34
Cr. Case No. 294957/2016
STATE Vs. SUSHIL KHURANA
Digitally
FIR No. 157/2015 signed by
HARSHITA
PS: (Kashmere Gate) HARSHITA MISHRA
MISHRA Date:
2026.04.27
17:59:27
+0530
24.04.2026
Present. Sh. Amit Yadav, Ld. APP for the State.
Both accused persons are present with ld. counsel Sh.
Arun Kumar.
PW-2 Sh. Santosh Singh in person.
PW Mohit, MTS from copyright office is present.
(9899954780)
PW Rajesh in person.
PW-2 Sh. Santosh Singh has been examined, cross examined and
discharged. The Authorization Letter issued by Sh. Gulfaraz Makani in the
name of Sh. Santosh Singh is taken on record and statement of the Sh.
Santosh Singh is recorded separately. Sh. Santosh Singh has stated that he
has no personal knowledge of the case and had not been a part of the initial
raiding team.
PW-1 Rajesh Kumar has been further examined in chief, cross
examined and discharged. Sh. Rajesh Kumar has failed to identify the seized
products and has also expressed his inability to recall whether he was a part
of the raiding team in the present case.
PW Mohit is present from the Trademarks Registry. He submits
that the registration number or the diary number of the registered trademarks
in question may be provided to him so that he can produce the relevant
documents on the NDOH. However, since the complainant has stated that he
Page No.1/8
doesn't remember the details of the case and cannot even identify the seized
products in the case, no effective purpose would now be served by examining
the official/ formal witnesses. He is accordingly, discharged unexamined.
Diet money be paid to the witnesses as per rules.
At this stage, Ld. APP for the State submits that considering the
testimony of the complainant Sh. Rajesh Kumar today, in which he has failed
to identify the seized products and has also expressed his inability to recall
whether he was a part of the raiding team in the present case, no effective
purpose would be served by examining the other witnesses in the case now.
He acknowledges that once the complainant, who was the pivot of the case
had failed to depose on the most material aspects of the case, examination of
other witnesses would not suffice to prove the prosecution's case. He
therefore, submits that the prosecution does not wish to examine the other
witnesses.
Considering the deposition of what has been deposed by the
complainant today in court, this court deems it fit to dispense with the
examination of the other police officials / formal witnesses in the present
case as their testimonies would be inconsequential now. PE is accordingly,
closed.
Nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused
persons and accordingly, the recording of their statements under Section 313
Cr. PC is also being dispensed with. Accused persons have opted not to lead
DE. Same has accordingly been closed.
Final arguments heard.
Page No.2/8
This court is now pronouncing the judgment based on oral
dictation in court.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present case emerges from a complaint alleging the infringement of intellectual property rights, specifically under the Copyright Act, 1957 and Trademarks Act. The prosecution asserts that on 31.03.2015, at Godown situated at 1/1386, First Floor, Motor Life Market, Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, and Shop No. 1384/88, Motor Life Market, Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, the accused persons namely Sushil Khurana and Mohd. Irfan, were respectively found in possession infringed/ counterfeit products of Maruti Suzuki Company and Mahindra & Mahindra Company, thereby brazenly infringing the copyrights and trademark rights of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and Mahindra & Mahindra Company.
2. The genesis of the trial lies in an FIR registered on 31.03.2015, based on the complaint filed by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of M/s EIPR. The prosecution sought to prove that the seized goods were 'colorable imitations' intended to deceive the public and cause financial loss to the rightful owner i.e. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and Mahindra & Mahindra Company.
3. The IO SI Ramakant Sharma, conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet on 18.12.2015 and cognizance was taken on 18.12.2015 itself. Copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons on 17.03.2016. Charge was formally framed under Section 63 Page No.3/8 of the Copyrights Act on 05.06.2018. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. PE was recorded from 29.07.2016 till date. The complainant Sh.
Rajesh Kumar came and deposed in the present case. He however, couldn't identify the case property contained in 12 bags, which were produced in the Court. The case property was kept in 12 sacks, which didn't have any seal on them. The witness could also not recall whether the case property shown to him had been seized in his presence. He could also not recall whether he had participated in any such raid on 31.03.2015. He could also not identify the accused persons in Court.
5. The other witness namely Sh. Santosh had only come to identify the signature of Sh. Gulfaraz Makhani, Director, M/s EIPR, on the Authorization Letter issued in favour of the complainant, who worked for M/s EIPR.
6. Considering the quality of testimony of the complainant, which completely effaced the prosecution's case on all material aspects, the other witnesses were dropped, noting the submissions of the Ld. APP for the State.
7. Considering that there was no incriminating material on record against the accused, the recording of the statement of the accused persons under S. 313 (2) CrPC was dispensed with. Similarly, without any evidence implicating the accused persons, no purpose was to be served by requiring them to lead defence evidence. Accused persons submitted that they did not wish to lead any defence evidence. Therefore, the right to lead DE was closed.
Page No.4/88. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
9. The following point arises for determination in the present case:
Whether the accused were found in possession of infringed/ counterfeit products of Maruti Company and Mahindra & Mahindra Co., thereby infringing the copyrights and trademarks of these companies?
10. The cornerstone of any criminal prosecution for IPR infringement is the testimony of the Right Holders or the original complainant who has been authorised to file the complaint. It is the complainant who must step into the witness box to: establish the ownership of the Trademark/Copyright; compare the seized goods with the original products; and depose categorically that no license or authority was ever granted to the accused.
11. In the present matter, the complainant after having given a partial account of the raid conducted in the matter, in his deposition recorded on 03.11.2016, failed to recall the specifics of the raid, identity of the seized products or the accused, when he deposed again on 24.04.2026. As the complainant re-stepped into the witness box to depose after an excruciating interregnum of nearly a decade, he failed to depose on these crucial aspects. The deposition of the complainant has proven to be the Achilles' heel of the prosecution's case. Time, the great eraser of memory, appeared to have completely eclipsed the facts of the incident from the witness's mind. This development has left the prosecution's case with a gaping evidentiary hole. While a decade-long trial is a systemic tragedy, the legal consequence is that the prosecution must Page No.5/8 still prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. A witness who cannot recall the core of the prosecution's case offers no evidence in the eyes of the law.
12. PW Gulfraz Makani also didn't appear in person and only sent his authorized representative to identify his handwriting and signature on the original Authorization Letter issued in the name of Sh. Rajesh Kumar.
13. The Ld. APP for the State also submitted that the testimonies of the Investigating Officer (IO) and the other recovery witnesses (police officials), would not be sufficient to prove the prosecution's case as these witnesses are official witnesses and their testimony shall suffer from a structural limitation in IPR litigation. He submitted that the police witnesses can, at best, prove the factum of recovery--that certain items were seized from the accused. However, they are not experts in the specific nuances of the complainant's copyright, nor are they the custodians of the trademark's goodwill. He further submitted that once the complainant failed to identify the seized products or the accused persons and could also not recall having been a part of the raiding team, the police testimony regarding the counterfeit nature of the goods or the raid conducted would remain inadequate to prove the prosecution's case. A police officer cannot substitute his opinion for the specific knowledge of the Trademark/ Copyright owner regarding the authenticity of a product. Without the complainant supporting the prosecution's case, there is no primary evidence to contrast the 'infringing products' with the 'original products'. The essential ingredients of Section 63 of the Copyrights Act and 103/104 of the Page No.6/8 Trademarks Act shall remain unproven. This Court finds substantial merit in the submissions made.
14. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases involving intellectual property, the 'person aggrieved' is the best witness to establish the breach. When the complainant--the very soul of the prosecution--fails to identify the seized products or the accused, the prosecution's case is completely diluted. The official witnesses cannot fill in the evidentiary void thus, created by the nature of the complainant's testimony, which has created an irreparable evidentiary void which could not be filled up by the testimonies of the police/ official witnesses alone.
15. In the present case, there is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that the accused persons had infringed the trademark and copyrights of Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. and Mahindra & Mahindra. Mere filing of a chargesheet or existence of allegations in the complaint cannot take the place of proof. It is also well settled that no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused for the lapses or inaction on the part of the prosecution or the complainant. The accused cannot be made to suffer the ordeal of a criminal trial when the prosecution itself has failed to discharge its primary burden. The law cannot presume infringement; it must be proven by those who claim to be infringed.
16. In the absence of a positive identification of the accused and the recovery of the case property by the complainant, the prosecution has failed to cross the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt.' The Page No.7/8 testimony on record is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The prosecution's case, once thought to be a robust strike against counterfeiting, has collapsed under the weight of its own delays and the resulting frailty of human memory.
17. Considering the above, the accused Sushil Khurana and Mohd. Irfan are accordingly, entitled to the benefit of the doubt. They are acquitted of the charges under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act and Section 103/104 Trademarks Act.
18. Bail bond and surety bonds of the accused persons to continue to remain in force for a period of six months from today.
19. Copy of this order cum judgment be given dasti to the accused persons/ their counsel against due acknowledgement.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(HARSHITA MISHRA) CJM/(Central)/THC/Delhi 24.04.2026 Page No.8/8