Bangalore District Court
Anil Kumar Pg,P vs Devi Singh on 23 December, 2025
KABC030002372023
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.
C.C.No.113/2023
PRESENT: Sri.Vinod Balnaik
B.A. LL.B (Spl.)
IX Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
COMPLAINANT:-
The State of Karnataka,
through PSI City Market PS.
(By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)
// Versus //
ACCUSED:-
Devi Singh,
S/o Bhagavan Singh,
Age 54 years,
R/at No.10/1,
Guru Complex Street,
Mamulpete,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.B.K.R.- Advocate)
2
C.C.No.113/2023
1. Date of Commencement of : 08.09.2022
Offence.
2. Date of Report of Offence : 08.09.2022
3. Name of Complainant : Sri.Anilkumar.P.G.
4. Offences Complained U/sec. : 51(B)(1) & 63 of Copy
Right Act and section 420 of
IPC.
5. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty.
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed through PSI City Market PS against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.51(B)(1) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution as per complaint and FIR is that, on 08.09.2022 at about 1.00 pm., within the limits of City Market Police Station situated at Maruthi Complex, Mamulpet, Bengaluru, the complainant got information that, the accused was manufacturing and selling spurious/counterfeit SKY BAGS OF reputed company i.e., EIPR INDIA PVT LTD of CW.2 without obtaining any permission of company authority and cheated to the company and public and thus the accused has committed the 3 C.C.No.113/2023 offences punishable U/sec.51(B)(1) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC.
03. After filing of charge sheet, this court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/sec.51(B)(1) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC and issued summons to the accused. Accordingly the accused appeared before the court through his counsel and enlarged on bail. The charge sheet copy and other prosecution papers were furnished to the accused by complying the provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
04. Heard both side on framing of charge, perused the prosecution papers. As there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against the accused, the charges has been framed and the same was read over to him, but he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Hence the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
05. In furtherance of the charges leveled against the accused, the following points are arisen for my consideration.
POINTS
01. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 08.09.2022 at about 1.00 pm., within the limits of City Market Police Station situated at Maruthi Complex, Mamulpet, Bengaluru, the complainant got information that, the accused was manufacturing and selling spurious/counterfeit SKY BAGS OF reputed company i.e., EIPR INDIA PVT LTD of 4 C.C.No.113/2023 CW.2 without obtaining any permission of company authority and cheated to the company and public and thus the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec.51(B)(1) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC. ?
02. What order or sentence?
06. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the witness i.e., CW.1 as PW.1, CW.7 as PW.2, CW.2 as PW.3, CW.6 as PW.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 9 and MO.1. CW.3 to 5 are not examined before this court.
07. After completion of evidence of prosecution, the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution is read over to the accused and statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating circumstances as false and not chosen to lead his side defence evidence.
08. Heard the arguments. My findings on the above said points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the negative. Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
09. Point No.1: To prove the case, the prosecution has examined CW.1 is examined as PW.1 who deposed that, on 08.09.2022 he visited the spot situated at Mamulpete 1st 5 C.C.No.113/2023 Cross, Gurucomplex along with CW.5 & 2 wherein the accused was selling the counterfeit sky bags. After enquiry he told that, he has stored the similar company bags in the godown named DC. Thereafter, they visited the said godown and confirmed about the same and registered the complaint in City Market Police Station. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution.
10. Further, CW.7 examined as PW.2 who being the Investigation Officer, who deposed about receiving of complaint, registering of crime, visiting of Nandi Belt and Novelties Shop and conducting of panchanama, seizure of material objects, obtaining the statement of CW.2 to 5, receiving of report and submitting of charge sheet. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution and discharging of his official duty.
11. Further, CW.2 examined as PW.3 who deposed about conducting of market survey on 07.09.2022 and lodged the complaint on 08.09.2022 and visited the spot along with CW.1 and 3 to 5 and 7. He found 50 counterfeit sky bags in the accused's shop. The police have seized them 6 C.C.No.113/2023 in the presence of panchas. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution.
12. Further, CW.6 is examined as PW.4, who being the Manager of EIPR Company has deposed about issuance of report with respect to seized materials and supported the case of prosecution.
13. It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant has visited the accused's shop by name Nandi Belt and Novelties situated at Mamulpete ABM Market, Bengaluru. But, in column No.17 of the charge sheet the description of the case has been printed about the facts of the Crime No.141/2022 i.e., CC No.118/2023. Apart from that, CW.7 has deposed that, he has issued notice to CW.6 on 09.09.2022 for issuance of genuineness report with respect to seized articles as per Ex.P.7. Whereas, the said CW.6 examined as PW.4, in his cross examination has deposed that, "...ನಿಪಿ.7 ನ್ನು ನಾನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ....". Further, it is noticed that, said PW.4 submitted the report as per Ex.P.6, but wherein no signature is made. Hence, which creates doubt about Ex.P.7 & Ex.P.6. Further, PW.2 in his cross examination has admitted that, "... ಮುದ್ದೆ ಮಾಲುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಪಂಚರ ಸಹಿ ಯುಳ್ಳ ಚೀಟಿ ಅಂಟಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ.....", which also creates doubt about the seizure of the MO.1 bags and case of the 7 C.C.No.113/2023 prosecution. Further, it is significant to note here that, the said seized alleged counterfeit/ spurious SKY BAG bags will not come under the purview of section 13 of Copy Right Act. Section 13(1) of Copy Right Act reads as under;
"Section 13. Works in which copyright subsists.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works, that is to say,--
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) cinematograph films; and
(c) 1[sound recording]".
Such being so, this court has relied upon the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, at Madras passed in Crl. OP.No.6357/2021 and Crl.M.P.No.4248 and 4249/2021, wherein para No.7, it is held that;
" para No.7:- ..... it is clear that, unless the infringement relates to original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, Cinematograph films and sound recordings, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. In the instant case, there are no such allegations, hence, the offences punishable U/Sec. 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 is not made. ....".8
C.C.No.113/2023 Such being so, for the reasons, provision and decision discussed supra, this court cannot come to conclusion that, the accused has committed the alleged offences. Hence, the doubt arises in the mind of the Court regarding the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. Thus, there are no any incriminating materials to establish the alleged offence leveled against the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered the Point No.1 in the negative.
14. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded to the above points, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising powers conferred U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/sec.51(B)(1) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall continue in force for a period of 6 months for the purposes of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The accused is set at liberty.
9
C.C.No.113/2023
The items i.e., bags reported in PF
No.81/2022 are ordered to be destroyed as
worthless after appeal period is over.
(Dictated Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this 23rd day of December 2025).
2025 (Sri Vinod Balnaik) IX Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW.1 : Anil Kumar P.G. PW.2 : Sanju M.N. PW.3 : T.Manimaran PW.4 : Sathish Kumar
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
--------NIL----------- List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P. 1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : FIR
10
C.C.No.113/2023
Ex.P.3 : Notice
Ex.P.4 : Panchanama
Ex.P.5 : Notice
Ex.P.6 : Report
Ex.P.7 : Notice
Ex.P.8 : Company related documents
Ex.P.9 : Complaint
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:-
--------NIL----------- Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
MO.1 : Bags
Digitally signed by
VINOD LAHU VINOD LAHU BALNAIK
BALNAIK Date: 2025.12.27
12:14:20 +0530
IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.11
C.C.No.113/2023 Judgment pronounced in the open court (Vide separate order).
ORDER By exercising powers conferred U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/sec.51(B)(1) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC.12
C.C.No.113/2023 The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall continue in force for a period of 6 months for the purposes of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The accused is set at liberty.
The items i.e., bags reported in PF No.81/2022 are ordered to be destroyed as
worthless after appeal period is over.
IX A.C.J.M. Bengaluru City.