Karnataka High Court
Shri Indra Singh S/O Basavant Singh vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2020
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12 T H DAY OF AUGUST 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101864 OF 2017
BETWEEN
SHRI INDER SINGH S/O BASAVANT SINGH
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GANESH PETH, SHETTAR ONI,
HUBBALLI (A-8), DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GOURISHANKAR H MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TOWN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE CASE FILED BEFORE
TOWN POLICE STATION HUBBALLI IN P.S.CRIME NO.281 OF
2013 NOW REGISTERED IN C.C.NO. 967 OF 2016 AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC I
COURT, HUBBALLI UNDER SECTION 51(B), 51(1), 63 OF COPY
RIGHT ACT READ WITH SECTION 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in CC No.967/2016 pending on the file of JMFC I Court, Hubballi registered for the offence punishable under Sections 51(b), 51(1), 63 of Copy Right Act read with Section 420 of IPC.
2. The facts leading to this petition are that CW-1 and others conducted a raid and seized duplicate products of Samsung Company like duplicate mobile phones, Touch pad, Flip Cover etc. The accused Nos.1 to 9 with an intention to cheat the Samsung Company and to cause loss to it, they found to be possessing the duplicate Samsung Company products in violation of the copy right Act. To that effect the said persons filed a complaint before the PSI, Town P.S. Hubballi. The said case is 3 registered in Town PS Crime No.281/2013 for the above said offences against the accused Nos.1 to 9. After completion of the investigation, the Police have filed the charge sheet before the Court which is numbers as CC No.3082/2013 against accused Nos.1 to 9. After issuance of summons by the Court, accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 were appeared before the Court. Split up charge sheet has been filed against petitioner-accused No.8 in CC No.967/2016 as he did not appear before the Court. In the trial Police adduced evidence of PW-1 to PW-17 and marked Ex.P1 to P12. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and on hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9. Now, petitioner-accused No.8 came to know that he 4 was charge sheeted and warrant is issued against the petitioner in split up charge-sheet in CC No.967/2016 registered for the aforesaid offence punishable on the file of 1st JMFC Court, Hubballi. The petitioner-accused No.8 has preferred this petition challenging the split up charge sheet.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.8 and the learned HCGP for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds of challenge are that the evidence placed on record by the prosecution in CC No.3082/2013 does not make out a prima facie case to prove the offences said to have been committed by the accused No.8. The prosecution witnesses PW.2 and PW.3 who are the panchas to the seizure 5 mahazar where under M.O.s 1 to 6 are seized from the shops of accused Nos.1 to 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no material on record which establishes the seized mobile phone accessories are duplicate products of Samsung Company. The evidence as against other accused and petitioner- accused No.8 being not different and as the said accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 have already been acquitted by granting of benefit of doubt, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner may not serve any useful purpose. The entire evidence in CC NO.3082/2013 has not proved by the prosecution version. Even if trial is held in split up case in CC No.967/2016, no purpose would be served.
5. It is an admitted fact that the Hubballi Town Police have submitted charge sheet 6 against accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offence punishable under sections 51(b), 51(1), 63 of Copy Right Act read with Section 420 of IPC. Out of 9 accused, 8 accused i.e accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 faced the trial and said accused were acquitted as the seizure of mobile phone accessories which are at M.Os.1 to 6 are not proved since panchas PW2 and PW3 have turned hostile and there are no material on records to establish that the seized mobile phone accessories are duplicate products of Samsung company. Since accused No.8 was not available for trial, the split up charge sheet came against the petitioner-accused No.8.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.8 is that in CC No.3082/2013 in which accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 were subjected to trial, no convincing 7 evidence has placed by the prosecution to seizure of M.O.s 1 to 6 from the shops of accused Nos.1 to 9 and there are no material on record which established that the seized mobile phone accessories are duplicate products of Samsung company. As such the said accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 were acquitted. Now, if the trial is held in the present split up charge sheet, the same witnesses who are examined in CC No.3082/2013 have to be examined and on the basis of their evidence no conviction is possible. Thus, the further proceedings in CC No.967/2016 may be quashed.
7. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.8 has relied on the following decisions:- 8
1. The state of Karnataka V.s.
K.C.Narasegowda, reported in
ILR 2005 KAR-1822.
2. Central Bureau of Investigation V.s. Akhilesh Singh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 and
3. Mohammed Ilias V.s. State of Karnataka, reported in 2001(3) Kar.L.J. 551.
8. In Central Bureau of Investigation V.s. Akhilesh Singh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 268, it is observed in paragraph No.6 as under:
"6. Another contention urged by the appellant was that the High Court exercised the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Court after a long lapse of time. It is true that the respondent challenged the framing of charges against him after a considerable delay, but it seems that the order of discharge passed in favour of the main accused attained finality only in 1994 9 when this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. It was thereafter only that the respondent approached the court with an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the learned single Judge in those circumstances condoned the delay. We do not think that the power exercised by the High Court suffered from any illegality or perversity. Going by the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that this is a fit case where this Court can interfere. The appeal is dismissed accordingly."
9. In Mohammed Ilias V.s. State of Karnataka, reported in 2001(3) Kar.L.J. 551, it is held that "The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be absconding.
Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against the other available accused 1 to 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of the IPC 10 read with Section 34 of IPC. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused 1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge-sheet...... In the instant case also the full-fledged trial was held against accused 1 to 3 in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter the proceeding is quashed."
10. In view of the observations made in the aforesaid cases, it is necessary to consider whether the evidence to be placed on record by prosecution witnesses is likely to be proved by the petitioner-accused No.8. As already stated above, PW2 and PW3 who are panchas to the spot panchanama under which mobile phone 11 accessories i.e M.O.s 1 to 6 are seized have not supported the case of the prosecution and there are no material on record to establish that seized mobile phone accessories are duplicate products of Samsung company and accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 have been acquitted. The entire material evidence of the prosecution is the same against the present petitioner also. Since, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from that one which was produced in CC No.3082/2013, no useful purpose would be served in holding fresh trial against the petitioner-accused No.8.
11. For the discussion made above, when there are no chances for conviction of the petitioner-accused No.8 by making fresh trial and the said process is nothing but futile exercise. There are no material on record 12 which establishes that the seized mobile phone accessories are the duplicate products of Samsung Company. As such, in my opinion benefit of doubt will have to be given to the petitioner-accused No.8 also. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER Criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Further proceedings in CC No.967/2016, pending on the file of JMFC I Court, Hubballi in so far as petitioner-accused No.8 is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Hmb