Delhi District Court
State vs Ankit Jain on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU SHARMA
ACJM (CENTRAL)-01, TIS HAZARI COURTS: NEW DELHI
STATE VS. ANKIT JAIN & ORS
FIR No. 388/2016
PS Sarai Rohilla
U/s 63 of Copyright Act & 103/104 of
Trade Mark Act
Date of Institution of case : 15.09.2018
Date of Judgment reserved : 21.02.2026
Date on which judgment pronounced : 14.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1) Cr. Case No. : 12712/2018
2) Date of commission of offence: 10.05.2016
3) Name of complainant : KRISHAN GOPAL
4) Name and address of accused : (1) ANKIT JAIN
S/o Sh. Sunil Jain
R/o H. No. 95 Harsh Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
(2) KUNDAN SINGH
S/o Sh. Surender Singh
R/o H. No. A574, Shastri
Nagar, Delhi.
(3) RAJESH KUMAR
S/o Sh. Raja Ram
R/o H. No. A-124, Sant
Nagar, Gali No. 4, Burari,
Delhi.
Cr Case No. 12712/2018
FIR No. 388/2016
PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 1/11
5) Offence complained of : U/s 63 of Copyright Act &
103/104 of Trade Mark Act
6) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final Order : ACQUITTAL
1. This judgment will dispose a case instituted on police report in respect of FIR No. 388 of the year 2016. FACTUAL SCENARIO:
2. Case as pleaded and as argued by the prosecution is that on one Krishan Gopal had given a complaint regarding manufacture and sell of counterfeit products of Kirlosker, Mahindra & Swaraj, Company. A raiding team was constituted and raid was conducted. Ankit Jain, Kundan Singh and Rajehs Kumar were found in possession of duplicate counterfeit products of ' Kirlosker, Mahindra & Swaraj Company' for the purpose of sale.
Investigation was conducted wherein the IO recorded disclosure statements of accused persons and statements of police officials and Krishan Gopal. Police then filed a chargesheet for an offence punishable under Section-63 of Copyright Act & 103/104 of Trade Mark Act.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE:
3. Court took cognizance and summoned the accused persons. Charge was framed for the offence punishable under Cr Case No. 12712/2018 FIR No. 388/2016 PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 2/11 Section-63 of Copyright Act & 103/104 of Trade Mark Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. They however accepted the registration of FIR, endorsement on rukka and certificate under Section-65B of Evidence Act.
4. For the aforesaid offences, prosecution examined PW1 Raj Kumar, this witness has not stated anything against the accused persons and has only proved the relevant documents/certificates in his deposition, PW2 Krishan Gopal who is the complainant in the present matter and has been cross-examined by the prosecution on the ground that he has not deposed the complete truth. PW3 Inspector Sunil Kumar who is the investigating officer in the present case and deposed on the same lines of the charge-sheet. List of witnesses and documents exhibited are attached as Annexure A. The main witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, the prosecution concluded the evidence.
After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused has been record. They claimed that witnesses were interested and they were falsely implicated. They however chosen not to lead any evidence in defence.
5. Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for accused persons advanced their oral arguments. This judgement shall dispose of the case.
BASIS OF OFFENCE:
Cr Case No. 12712/2018 FIR No. 388/2016 PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 3/116. Prosecution wants to claim that in a raid conducted at F-30, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, accused Ankit Jain, at 1768 Shastri Nagar, Delhi, accused Kundan Singh and at shop no. 346/02, Baghre Khan Sarai Rohilla accused Rajesh Kumar, were found in possession of Kirlosker, Mahindra and Swaraj which were found on inspection to be counterfeit and therefore, accused persons violated under section 63 of Copyright Act and 103/104 Trade Mark Act.
7. At first place, it is relevant here to examine the testimony PW2 complainant which to the relevant extent is as under:-
"In May 2016, I was working as Investigating officer at EIPR, Jhandewalan, Karol Bagh. There I used to work for Mahindra, Swaraj and Maruti Company and my scope of work was to look for their counterfeit products in the market such Packaging material. I used to make a complaint to DIU office if I came across counterfeit products of the above said companies. On 10.05.2016, I had given one complaint to DCP North district which is now Ex.PW2/A bearing my signatures at point A, as I was authorized to make a complaint to the police. After some days, I was called to DIU office where I along with the IO and his team went to Sarai rohilla area where I identified the Cr Case No. 12712/2018 FIR No. 388/2016 PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 4/11 counterfeit products of above said companies and it was seized by the 10 and had taken my signatures on seizure memos which are now Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C and Ex. PW/D all bearing my signatures at point A. Many public persons gathered at the spot and thereafter, I along with the police official returned to the DIU office. Owner of the shop was not present at that time from where the material was seized. On reaching the DIU office, police officials took my signatures on the arrest memos and personal search memos which are now Ex.PW2/E to Ex.PW2/J all bearing my signatures at point A. Thereafter, I left DIU office.
I had also submitted the photocopies of documents relate to the copyright, trademark of above said companies, certificate of training letter, letter of authority, power of attorney which are now marked as Mark A (colly.).
I cannot identify the accused persons, if shown to me. I may identify the case property if shown to me."
8. Ld. APP for the State cross-examined the abovesaid witness however, nothing favourable could be extracted from the witness. The prosecution itself believe that the complainant has Cr Case No. 12712/2018 FIR No. 388/2016 PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 5/11 not supported the case of the complaint and opted for not to examine other witnesses. This clearly shows that the evidence is deficient to held the accused persons guilty. However not only this, there are many lapses in the proceedings and evidence which is being discussed in following paras of this judgment.
9. The complainant in his examination in chief stated that he gave his complaint on 10.05.2016 and he was called in the office of the DIU Office after same days and raid was conducted in the areas of the Sarai Rohilla. This at first blush shows that the raid was conducted on the same day at the three premises and the raid was conducted not on 10.05.2016 but after some days. Whereas the case of the prosecution is that the three raids were conducted, first on 10.05.2016, second on 14.05.2016 and third on 27.06.2016. When the complainant was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State although, he admitted that the raid was conducted on 14.05.2016 and 27.05.2016 however, he could not remember the area he went alongwith the raiding team on these dates. He also could not remember whether the case property was seized on 27.06.2016 and given number A25 to A27 and its samples as S3. This clearly shows doubt whether the raid was conducted on the days stated or not.
10. Complainant deposed in his examination-in-chief that the owner of the shop was not present at the time from where the Cr Case No. 12712/2018 FIR No. 388/2016 PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 6/11 material were seized and even the State could not try to clarified this aspect while cross-examining him. On the other hand, IO in his examination-in-chief stated that when raiding team alongwith the complainant went to the F30, Shastri Nagar, Sarai Rohilla, Ankit Jain met at the aforesaid premises and in the said premises items alongwith the packaging material of Kirlosker, Mahindra and Swaraj etc companies were found. This raise the doubt about the status of the accused person as in what capacity they were found there. Even the evidence is not clear as to who all were present at all the three premises when the raid was conducted. Interestingly, the charge-sheet, mentioned that when the complainant alongwith the raiding team reached at shop number F-30, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, the complainant identify the alleged Ankit Jain, the owner of the shop. As far as, the raids conducted at Shop No. 1768, Shastri Nagar, Delhi and building no. 346/10, Bhagre Khan, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, are concerned, it is stated in the charge-sheet that the accused Kundan Singh and Rajesh Kumar were found to be present there. However, neither complainant has deposed on these facts nor the prosecution has tried to bring these facts on record despite availing the opportunities of cross examination. In fact the complainant in his examination in chief stated that he could not identify the accused persons.
Cr Case No. 12712/2018 FIR No. 388/2016 PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 7/1111. As per the cross examination of the complement many persons gathered at the spot and thereafter alongwith the raiding team the complainant returned to the DIU Office and when the witness were cross-examined in this regard, he simply could not recalled the same. This entire discrepancy shows that the witness is not reliable and his testimony could not be considered to reach at any conclusion.
12. IO is a police witness and he has deposed on the fact of proceedings of the raid. No public person was joined by the police officials to witnesses the alleged recovery from the accused. The fact that the said area is frequented by public persons and the raid was conducted during day time, makes the absence of public persons as witness to the alleged recovery a critical factor which raises serious doubts over the alleged recovery. There is no explanation as to why the IO did not perform his duties in lawful manner. It is one thing to say that police witness should be given same value but it is entirely different thing to say that despite availability of public person, IO should be allowed to conduct raid and seizure proceedings with only police officials and interested complainant. Therefore, the raid proceedings are not reliable.
13. Complainant, namely Krishan Gopal has not supported the case of the prosecution. No expert has been examined who could Cr Case No. 12712/2018 FIR No. 388/2016 PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 8/11 have shown that there was any counterfeit product. Raid is doubtful. Seizure is doubtful. None of the essentials of claim made by the prosecution has been established on record. In such circumstances, we cannot interfere the fundamental right of liberty of a citizen.
RESULT:
14. In view of the above, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that any offence was committed or that the accused persons were involved in any offence as projected by the prosecution in this case. Accordingly, accused persons, namely, ANKIT JAIN, KUNDAN SINGH & RAJESH KUMAR are acquitted of offence in the present case.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU SHARMA
Announced in the open Court today SHARMA Date:
i.e. on 14.03.2026 2026.03.14
17:19:44
+0530
(NEETU SHARMA)
ACJM-01(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/ DELHI
Cr Case No. 12712/2018
FIR No. 388/2016
PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 9/11
ANNEXURE 'A'
Prosecution Name of Witness Description
Witness No.
1. Sh. Raj Kumar Official of Tata
Power.
2. Sh. Krishan Gopal Complainant
3. Inspector Sunil Kumar Investigating
Officer.
Exhibited Documents:-
Exhibit No. Description of the Proved
Exhibit by/Attested by
Ex. PW1/A, Copy of application PW1
regarding connection
alloted in the name of
Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain.
Ex. PW2/A, Complaint to DCP PW2
North,
Ex. PW2/B to
Signatures on seizure
Ex.PW2/D,
Memos of counterfeit
Ex. PW2/E to products
Ex. PW2/J
Arrest Memos and
personal search
memos.
Ex. PW2/K &
Ex. PW2/I Disclosure statements
of accused Kundan
Cr Case No. 12712/2018
FIR No. 388/2016
PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 10/11
Singh and Rajesh
Kumar
Ex. PW3/A to Seizure Memo of PW3
counterfeit products,
Ex. PW3/D
rukka, site plan &
disclosure statement
of accused Ankit Jain.
Ex. A1 FIR Admitted by accused
persons U/s 294 Cr.PC
Ex. A2 Endorsement on
rukka.
Ex. A3 Certificate U/s 65B of
the Indian Evidence
Act.
Digitally signed
by NEETU
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.03.14
17:19:51 +0530
(NEETU SHARMA)
ACJM-01(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/ DELHI
Cr Case No. 12712/2018
FIR No. 388/2016
PS Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Ankit Jain & Ors Page 11/11