Bangalore District Court
State By Commercial Street Police vs Nos.1 To 3 For The Offences Punishable ... on 16 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 16th day of February 2016
Present: Sri.J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C.,
1.C.C.No. 18431/2012
2.Date of Offence 28-5-2012
3.Complainant State by Commercial Street Police
Station
4.Accused 1. Ibrahim Beri
S/o. Late Abdul Rehman,
Aged 37 Years, Residing at No.5,
L.No.6th Street Charminar Maseedi
Road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore.
2. Mohammed Usuf
S/o Late Mohammed Beri, Aged 35
Years, Residing at No.1, Anjaneya
Building, New Age School Road, NTR
Layout, Marathalli, Bangalore.
3. Mohammed Ali
S/o Kunchalavi, Aged 43 Years,
Residing at No.33, Meenakshi Koil
Street, Shivajinagar, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.51(A), (B) and 63 of Copyright
of Act, 1957 and Section 420 of IPC.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not
guilty.
2 C.C.No.18431/2012
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted
16-2-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Commercial Street Police
Station, Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections
51(A), (B) and 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 420 of
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
28-5-2012 in BAG X shop No.38, the accused No.1 being its
owner, in Travel Zone shop No.32, the accused No.2 being its
owner, and in CRAFT CENTRE shop No.25, the accused No.3
being its owner, all said shops are situated at Jumma Masjid
Road, Commercial Street, Shivajinagar Bangalore, within the
limits of Commercial Street Police station, the above named
accused persons were found in possession and selling of
counterfeit Bag, Purse and other items in the brand name of
LV over which Louis Vitton Company had copyright without
there being any authorisation or written consent from the
copyright holder and further the accused persons were selling
same to the general public as if the said bags, purse and other
items are being supplied by the copyright holder company and
thereby infringed the copyright of the said company, also
3 C.C.No.18431/2012
cheated the general public as well as the copyright holder
company and committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are on bail. On receipt of
chargesheet, this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of prosecution papers to the accused
Nos.1 to 3. After hearing on charges, this court has framed
the charge for the offences punishable U/s.63 Copyright Act,
1957 and section 420 of IPC and questioned the accused
persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has not
examined any witnesses. Since, C.Ws.1 to 7 did not turn up
before this court, by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP,
this court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Since, the prosecution has not adduced any
incriminating evidence against accused Nos.1 to 3, their
statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. As stated above, the prosecution to prove guilt against
accused has not examined any witnesses on record. The order
sheet indicating that on 13-10-2014 charge against accused
Nos.1 to 3 framed. Thereafter, summons issued on two
occasions and bailable warrant on one occasion to all the
4 C.C.No.18431/2012
witnesses. It appears, on 28-4-2015, C.W.1 was present
before the court to give evidence but for want of deposit of
properties, his examination deferred. Subsequently, C.W.1
was absent before the court. Thereafter, NBW has been issued
to C.Ws.1 to 7 on four occasions, however on 30-10-2015
C.W.5 was present, again for want of deposit of properties,
examination of C.W.5 deferred and issued direction to the SHO
of Commercial Street Police Station to deposit the properties.
Even thereafter C.W.5 was absent before the court. Again,
NBW issued to all the witnesses but the concerned police have
not secured the presence of any witnesses. Moreover, the
concerned police have not deposited the properties instead, on
9-12-2015, the SHO of Commercial Street Police Station has
given requisition and sought time to deposit seized properties
on the ground that the investigating officer who investigated
the matter and seized the properties, has not handed over the
charge. Accordingly, the explanation given for deposit of
properties not accepted by this court and issued show cause
notice to SHO of Commercial Street Police Station for non-
deposit of properties, even in spite of it, the said SHO not
deposited the properties for the reason best known to him.
Unfortunately, this case is ending with acquittal of accused
Nos.1 to 3 particularly for want of deposit of properties and for
not keeping the witnesses before the court for examination.
5 C.C.No.18431/2012
8. The shara made by the concerned police dated 5-6-
2015 indicating that since the address of C.W.1 is outside the
state the process police prayed time to serve summons on him.
He expressed his inability to serve summon to C.Ws.2, 3 and 6
due to special duty entrusted to him. Accordingly, he sought
time to serve summons to said witnesses. However, when he
visited the address of C.Ws.4, 5 and 7 to serve summons, they
were on special duty and as such, he informed the summons
of this case to their respective office. Even though summons to
C.Ws.4, 5 and 7 served on their respective office, they have not
appeared before the court. It appears the police inspector of
Jagajeevanranagar police station, who is the investigation
Officer of this case, on 17-12-2014, sent requisition and
sought time to appear before the court to give evidence.
Though as per his request, time granted, subsequently he has
not appeared before the court to give evidence.
9. The further shara dated 31-10-2015 indicating that
when process police visited the address of C.Ws.2, 3 and 6, he
could not locate their correct address. Since the address of
C.W.1 is outside the state and since the process police
entrusted with special duty, he sought time to serve summons
to him. He informed the SHO of C.Ws.4, 5 and 7 to appear
before the court to give evidence but they have not appeared
before the court.
6 C.C.No.18431/2012
10. The further shara dated 9-12-2015 indicating that
when process police visited the address of C.Ws.2, 3 and 6, he
could not locate their correct address. Since the address of
C.W.1 is outside the state and since he entrusted with special
duty, he prayed time to serve summons to the said witness. He
informed C.Ws.4 and 7 to appear and to give evidence before
the court. Since C.W.5 was on leave, he prayed to time to
serve summons to him.
11. The further shara dated 23-2-2015 indicating that
since C.W.1 retired from service when the process police
visited his permanent address, he served summons of this
case to the family members of said CW.1 but no shara
pertaining to other witnesses on record.
12. From the above-referred shara it is very much clear
that C.W.1 since residing outside of our state the process
police not visited his address to serve summon on the ground
of his special duty entrusted by his higher police officer.
However, he expressed his difficulty to locate the address of
C.Ws.2, 3 and 6. C.Ws.1 and 5 though on two occasions have
appeared before the court for want of deposit of properties
their examination not recorded. Even though specific
direction issued to the SHO of Commercial Street Police
Station to deposit the properties, the said SHO instead of
depositing the seized properties has expressed his difficulty
7 C.C.No.18431/2012
that since the investigating officer Pradeep Poojari PSI has not
given charge of files and properties, he has not deposited the
same. Even until this date, the said SHO has not deposited the
properties. This case is ending with acquittal due to fault on
part of the Investigating Officer particularly in not depositing
the properties and particularly not taking seriousness of the
directions of this court about service of summons and warrant
to the witnesses. It is high time to the higher police officers to
take serious note of the present situation and have to initiate
disciplinary action against erring police officers about non
deposit of seized properties so that in future this type of
mistake could be, prevented at the hands of other police
officers. In my opinion, though this court issued summons,
bailable warrants and non-bailable warrant to all the
witnesses, the concerned police have not secured the presence
of any witnesses before the court. Even this court seriously
doubts the shara of the process police because he always
expressed his difficulty in serving the summons particularly to
C.W.1 on the ground entrustment of special duty. If really the
process entrusted with special duty, the SHO has to avoid in
deputing the process police for special duty as it is causing
hindrance to the court proceedings. Anyhow, there is
negligence on the part of the police officers in not depositing
the seized properties and not securing the presence of
witnesses. Since the this case is of the year 2012, in the
interest of speedy justice to the accused, even though the
8 C.C.No.18431/2012
learned Sr.APP., prayed time to secure the presence of
witnesses, by rejecting his prayer, examination of C.Ws.1 to 7
dropped. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove guilt against accused Nos.1 to
3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Nos.1 to 3 are
entitled for benefit of doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 to 3 has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
Issue direction to SHO of Commercial Street Police Station to deposit the properties forthwith. The seized properties under P.F.No.36/2012, item Nos.1 to 3 confiscated to government after appeal period is over.
Office to put the seized properties into auction after removing labels on it.
9 C.C.No.18431/2012(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of February 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.