Bangalore District Court
State By Indranagar Police Station vs Has Been Acquitted For The ... on 6 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 6th 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.CC No 14617/2013
2.Date of Offence 1-5-2012
3.Complainant State by Indranagar Police Station
4.Accused Sriram
S/o. Subbaiah, aged 40 years,
Residing at No.12, 19A Block,
Andhara Block, Lakshmipura,
Indranagar, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.52(A) and 63 of Copyright Act,
of 1957.
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 6-2-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Indranagar Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for
the offences punishable U/s.52(A) and 63 of Copyright Act.
2 C.C.No.14617/2013
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
1-5-2012 at 5.00 p.m., in Venkateshwara Video shop, in
No.30, 1st main, Lakshmipuram, within the limits of
Indranagar Police Station, the accused being the owner of the
said shop was found in possession and selling of pirated DVDs
of different language films over which different language films
member companies of V4U copyright protection had copyright,
without there being any authorisation or written consent from
the copyright holder and said DVDs did not contain the name
and the person who has made, the name and address of the
owner of the copyright and the year of its first publication and
further the accused was selling the same to the general public
as if the said DVDs are being supplied by the copyright holder
company and thereby infringed the copyright of the said
company and cheated the general public as well as copyright
holder company and committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused is on bail. On receipt of charge sheet
copies, this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused.
After hearing on charges, this court has framed the charge for
the offences punishable U/s.68A and 63 of Copyright Act and
section 420 of IPC and read over to the accused in the
languages known to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
3 C.C.No.14617/2013
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has not
examined any witnesses and has not been marked any
documents. Since C.Ws.1 to 10 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 adduce any
incriminating evidence against the accused, his statement
u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.
6. I have heard both counsels and perused evidence on
record.
7. The prosecution to prove guilt against accused has not
examination any witnesses on record. The order sheet
indicating that on 19-12-2014 charge framed. Thereafter,
summons has been issued on two occasions, bailable warrant
has been issued on two occasions and non bailable warrant
has been issued on five occasions even through commissioner
of police. Unfortunately, the concerned police have not
secured the presence of any witnesses before the court. The
shara made by the concerned police dated 4-6-2014 indicating
that since the process police entrusted election duty he prayed
time to serve summons to witnesses. Further the shara dated
6-7-2015 indicating that since C.Ws.1, 4 and 10 transferred to
4 C.C.No.14617/2013
some other place they were not available for service. When the
process police visited the address of C.W.2, he was told that
C.W.2 went to his native place. The process police could not
locate the address of C.Ws.3, 7 and 9. When process police
visited the address of C.W.8, he was not available for service.
Since C.W.5 was on special duty the process the police prayed
time to serve summons to all the witnesses. Further the shara
dated 9-12-2015 indicating that since C.Ws.1, 4 and 10
transferred to some other station they were not available for
service. C.W.2 had been to another place when process police
visited his address for service. The process police could not
locate the address of C.Ws.3, 7 and 9. Even C.W.6 not
available for service when the process police visited his
address. Since C.W.5 is on special duty the process police
preyed time to serve summons to him. From the above
referred shara it is very much clear that though some of the
witnesses were available for service more particularly the
police staff and officers, process police has not served
summons to them or the said police staff and officers have not
shown interest to receive the summons. However, they had
knowledge of summons of this case. Unfortunately, none have
appeared before the court. The Higher police officers have to
take serious note of this fact and should take serious action
against concerned police staff and officers who are deliberately
not appearing before the court to give evidence.
5 C.C.No.14617/2013
Unfortunately, this case is ending with acquittal without
examination of any witnesses. Moreover, this case is pending
from 2013 and accused has right to seek early disposal.
Though this court repeatedly issued summons, bailable
warrant and non bailable warrant even through commissioner
of police but the concerned police have failed to secure the
presence of any witnesses before the court. In my opinion, the
concerned police have ignored their responsibility. Since this
case is of the year 2013, by rejecting the prayer of learned
Sr.APP., examination of C.Ws.1 to 10 dropped. Accordingly, I
am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to
prove guilt against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. In the
result, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under section 68A and 63 of Copyright Act and section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C accused has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
His bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
6 C.C.No.14617/2013The property seized under P.F.No.67/2012 item No.1 420 pirated DVDs are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Issue direction to the concerned police to deposit the said properties forthwith.
(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 6th 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.7 C.C.No.14617/2013
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under section 68A and 63 of Copyright Act and section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C accused has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
His bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
The property seized under P.F.No.67/2012 item No.1 420 pirated DVDs are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Issue direction to the concerned police to deposit the said properties forthwith.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.