Bangalore District Court
State By J.P.Nagar Police Station vs Has Not Examined Any Witnesses On ... on 23 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 23rd day of February 2016
Present : Shri J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 19323/2013
2.Date of Offence 9-11-2012
3.Complainant State by J.P.Nagar Police Station
4.Accused 1. Thouseep
S/o. Nawaz Pasha, Residing at
Mangammanapalya, Khaja Masid,
Bommanahalli, Hosur Road,
Bangalore.
5. Offences complained Under Section 52A and 68(A) of
of Copyright Act, 1957.
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 23-2-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, J.P.Nagar police station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against accused for the
offences punishable U/s.52(A) and 68(A) of Copyright Act,
1957.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
9-11-2012 at 10-00 p.m., opposite to cake corner bakery, on
2 C.C.No.19323/2013
footpath, located at 3rd stage, East-end, J.P.Nagar, within the
limits of J.P.Nagar police station, the accused was found in
possession and selling of pirated DVDs of different language
films which did not contain the name, address of the person
who has made, the name and address of the owner of the
copyright, the year of its first publication without obtaining
written consent or license from the copyright holder and
further the accused was selling the same to the general public
as if the said DVDs are supplied by the copyright holder
company and thereby cheated the general public as well as the
copyright holder company and committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused is 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. After hearing on
charges, this court has framed the charge for the offences
punishable under section 68A of Copyright Act, 1957 and
section 420 of IPC and questioned the accused regarding the
charge he denied the charge and claimed to be, tried.
4. The prosecution to prove its case has not examined
any witnesses on record and has not been marked any
documents. Since C.Ws.1 to 5 did not turn up before this
court, in the interest of speedy justice to the accused, by
rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP., this court dropped the
examination of said witnesses.
3 C.C.No.19323/2013
5. Since, the prosecution has not adduced any
incriminating evidence against accused, his statement under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., 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 11-8-2014 charge framed and there
after summons has been issued on four occasions, bailable
warrant on two occasions and non bailable warrant on four
occasions to all the witnesses, but the concerned police have
not secured the presence of any witnesses before the court.
8. The shara made by the concerned police dated 16-2-
2016 indicating that the process police informed C.W.4 to
attend the court to give evidence. Since C.W.1 is on leave, the
process police prayed time to serve summons to him and to
other witnesses. Even in spite of service of summons, C.W.4
has not appeared before the court. The further shara dated
23-6-2015 indicating that since C.W.1 is on special duty and
C.W.4 retired from service, the process police informed them
about summons of this case through telephone but they have
not appeared before the court. Since C.W.5 retired from
service the process police prayed time to serve summons to
him and to C.Ws.2 and 3. Even before the dates of above
referred shara and thereafter this court repeatedly issued
summons, bailable warrant and non bailable warrant to all the
witnesses, unfortunately the concerned police have not
4 C.C.No.19323/2013
secured 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, in the interest of speedy
justice to the accused, by rejecting the prayer of learned
Sr.APP., examination of C.W.1 to 6 dropped. Accordingly, I am
of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to
prove guilt against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hence, accused No.1 is entitled for benefit of doubt. In the
result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused No.1 for the offences under section 68(A) of Copyright Act, 1957 and section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offences.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
The properties seized under P.F.No.323/2012 item No.1 cash Rs.100/- is confiscated to government after appeal period is over, item No.2 is being worthless shall be destroyed 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 23rd day of February 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
5 C.C.No.19323/2013ANNEXURE 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.6 C.C.No.19323/2013
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused No.1 for the offences under section 68(A) of Copyright Act, 1957 and section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offences.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
The properties seized under P.F.No.323/2012 item No.1 cash Rs.100/- is confiscated to government after appeal period is over, item No.2 are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.