Bangalore District Court
State By S.J.Park Police Station vs Persons Were Selling The Same To The ... on 30 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 30th day of October 2015
Present : Sri. J.V.Vijayananda, B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.CC No 20637/2013
2.Date of Offence 26-8-2013
3.Complainant State by S.J.Park Police Station
4. Accused 1. Kishor Chabriya S/o Pinanmal
Chabriya, aged 30 years, Video
Tronix, Shop No.108, S.P.Road,
Bangalore.
2. Prakash S/o Chetan Raj, aged 32
years, No.175, 5th Main,
Cottonpet, Bangalore.
3. Vagatharam S/o Ramjee, aged 22
years, No.J-34, 1st Floor, Near
Attimaramma Temple, Cottonpet,
Bangalore.
4. Sathish Kumar S/o Parkaji, aged
27 years, No.3, Near Canara
Bank, BEL Circle, Vidyaranyapura
Main Road, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.51(B) (1) 63, Copy Right Act,
of 1957 and section 420 of IPC
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 to 4 pleaded not
2 C.C.No.20637/2013
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 30-10-2015
- --
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, S.J.Park Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to
4 for the offences punishable U/s. 51(B), (1), 63 of Copyright
Act, 1957 and Sec.420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 26-
8-2013 at 12-00 p.m., in Video Tranic shop situated at
No.108, Anjus building, Balaji Complex, S.P.road, in Prakash
Telecom shop situated at No.50, 3rd floor, Vinayaka Electronic
Plaza, 1st cross, S.P.Road, in Bangalore Telecom shop situated
at No.5/2, 1st floor, 1st cross, S.P.Road and in Mahadeva
Telecom shop situated at No.17/1, 2nd cross, S.P.road,
Bangalore within the jurisdiction of S.J.Park Police Station,
the accused Nos.1 to 4 being the owners of above referred
shops respectively, were found in possession and selling of
counterfeit mobile phones and its accessories in the brand
name of Samsung over which Samsung electronic company
limited had copyright, without there being any authorization
or written consent from the copyright holder and thereby
infringed the copyright of said company and further the
3 C.C.No.20637/2013
accused persons were selling the same to the general public,
as if the said products are supplied by copyright holder
company and thereby cheated the general public as well as
copyright holder company and committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are on bail. On receipt of
charge sheet, this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
Nos.1 to 4. After hearing on charge, this court framed the
charge for the offences punishable under section 63 of
Copyright Act and section 420 of IPC for which the accused
Nos.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty, and claims to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt against
accused Nos.1 to 4 have examined only one witness as P.W.1
and got marked only one document as per Ex.P1. Since
C.Ws.1 to 8 and 10 did not turn up before this court, by
rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP, this court dropped the
examination of said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused Nos.1 to 4
as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied
the incriminating evidence appeared against them and
submitted that they have no defence evidence.
4 C.C.No.20637/2013
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused
the evidence on record.
7. The prosecution to prove guilt against accused Nos.1
to 4 has examined only one witness by name Satish Kumar
the representative of EIPR company as PW.1. The testimony of
P.W.1 indicating that on 26-8-2013 the investigation officer of
his company R. Stefenraj has lodged complaint to the CCB
police regarding selling of counterfeit products in the brand
name of Samsung. In this connection, on 6-9-2013, the S.J
Park Police called him to verify the seized articles by the CCB
Police. Accordingly, he visited said police station, verified
seized items and has given his opinion that the seized
products are duplicate. It appears, the report given by PW.1 is
marked as Ex.P1 and he gave his explanation about his
opinion that normally the original products are consisting of
printed MRP sticker and Samsung logo on the box. Apart from
this, no dealers of Samsung Company authorized to sell its
spare part to the accused persons who are not authorized
dealers of Samsung products. Further, explained that
normally the original display touch screen comes with printing
whereas duplicate comes with sticker.
8. As stated above, in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. In a case like this, the offences have to
be, proved in a circumstantial evidence by way of proving the
5 C.C.No.20637/2013
seizure mahazar of seized products beyond all reasonable
doubt. Further, the prosecution has to prove that seized
Mobile phones and its accessories, are counterfeit in the brand
name of Samsung. Further, the prosecution has to prove that
Samsung Electronic Company Limited had copyright over the
brand name of Samsung. Further, the prosecution has to
prove that accused No.1 to 4 are the owners of Video Tranic
shop, Prakash Telecom, Bangalore telecom and Mahadev
Telecom shops respectively. As stated above, the prosecution
to prove its case has examined only one witness but inspite of
giving sufficient opportunities, the prosecution has not
examined the independent seizure mahazar witnesses and the
investigation officer who conducted the seizure. Therefore, the
prosecution has filed to prove the seizure mahazar of alleged
counterfeit products in the brand name of Samsung beyond all
reasonable doubt.
9. It appears, even though the prosecution has examined
only witness who is the representative of EIPR Company and
he deposed regarding seized products as counterfeit, his
evidence is not conclusive to hold that seized Mobile Phones
and its accessories are counterfeit in the brand names of
Samsung because he has not explained the procedure adopted
by him to give his opinion. It appears though P.W.1 has
deposed that he had trained to verify the seized articles, no
explanation as to how he is expert to identify the seized
6 C.C.No.20637/2013
products as counterfeit and no documentary evidence
supports his explanation. Further, the investigation officer has
not collected any documents from P.W.1 to show that he had
some experience or training to identify the counterfeit
products in the brand name of Samsung. Apart from this
PW.1 who is the representative of EIPR Company, is the
interested witness who is always interest in favour of his
company i.e., Samsung Company which has authorized him to
act on its behalf. In my opinion, the investigation officer ought
to have obtained the report from the independent expert or
from authorized lab about seized products. Therefore, the
evidence of P.W.1 is insufficient to hold that the prosecution
has proved that the seized products are counterfeit in the
brand name of Samsung.
10. Further, the prosecution has not examined any
witnesses and has not been marked any documents to show
that Samsung electrical company limited had copyright over
brand name of Samsung. Further the prosecution has not
examined any witnesses and has not produced any acceptable
documents to prove that accused Nos.1 to 4 are the owners of
the above referred shop. Therefore, looking from any angle, I
am of the considered opinion that the evidence on record is
insufficient to conclude that the prosecution has proved its
case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Nos.1
7 C.C.No.20637/2013
to 4 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 4 for the offences under section 51(B), (1), 63, Copy Right Act 1957 and Sec.420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
Office to return M.O.1 to C.W.2 R.Stefen Raj the investigator of EIPR Company after obtaining necessary documents about his authorization by the Samsung Company as on the date of return after appeal period is over.
(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 30th day of October 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 Sathishkumar 8 C.C.No.20637/2013 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Opinion Ex.P.1(a) Signature
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
M.O.1- Seized articles LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS &
MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.9 C.C.No.20637/2013
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under section 51(B), (1), 63, Copy Right Act 1957 and Sec.420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
Office to return M.O.1 to C.W.2 R.Stefen Raj the investigator of EIPR Company after obtaining necessary documents about his authorization by the Samsung Company as on the date of return after appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.