Bangalore District Court
Took Himself And Cw.3 On The Basis Of vs Situated At Ratan Stationary World on 25 July, 2022
1
KABC030313512019
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 25th day of July 2022
Present : Sri.R.Mahesha.
BAL.LLB.,
IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CC No.9894/2019
1.C.C.No. 9894/2019
2.Date of offence 12/07/2016
3.Complainant State by HAL Police
Station.
4.Accused Narapath Singh
S/o.Deep Singh
Aged about 30 years,
R/o. 5th Cross,
Near Tulasi Talkies Road,
Marathhalli,
Bengaluru.
5. Offences U/Sec. 68 of Copyright Act &
complained of Sec.420, 483, 486 r/w 34 of
IPC.
2
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 25/07/2022.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of hal Police Station, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.68 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 483, 486 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.07.2016 at about 6.00 pm the accused found in possession and selling of duplicate HP toners at M/s.Ratan Stationary World, No.727, Rajagopal Reddy building, Thulasi Theater road, Marathahalli, Bengaluru within the limits of HAL police station, without obtaining any licence or permission 3 from HP Company and thereby violated the copyright of the company and also caused loss to it and cheated to the public and also HP Company. In this regard, CW.1 lodged first information statement and based on the same FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.429/2016 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 68 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 483, 486 r/w 34 of IPC. Thereafter, CW.1 along with CW.2 to CW.9 and with panchas rushed to the spot and conducted raid and seized the alleged duplicate toners by drawing panchanama. Thereafter, PI completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.68 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 483, 486 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. After filing of the charge sheet this Court has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec. 68 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 483, 486 r/w 34 of IPC and issued summons to the accused. Accused has appeared before this Court through his counsel and obtained bail. 4 The copy of the charge sheet has been furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides the charge has been framed and read over to accused. But he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case has been posted for prosecution evidence.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined only two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. Thereafter, the statement of the accused u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He has not chosen to adduce his defence evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the entire oral evidence and documents placed on record.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
5
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 12.07.2016 at about 6.00 pm the accused found in possession and selling of duplicate HP toners at M/s.Ratan Stationary World, No.727, Rajagopal Reddy building, Thulasi Theaatre road, Marathahalli, Bengaluru within the limits of HAL police station, without obtaining any licence or permission from HP Company and thereby violated the copyright of the company and also caused loss to it and cheated to the public and also HP Company and thereby committed an offences punishable under Sec.68 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 483, 486 r/w 34 of IPC ?
(2) What order ?
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- The prosecution has alleged that on on 12.07.2016 at about 6.00 pm the accused found in possession and selling of duplicate HP toners at M/s.Ratan Stationary World, No.727, Rajagopal Reddy building, Thulasi Theaatre road, Marathahalli, Bengaluru within the limits of HAL police station, without obtaining any licence or permission from HP Company and thereby violated the 6 copyright of the company and also caused loss to it and cheated to the public and also HP Company. Therefore, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused. As already stated supra, the prosecution has examined only two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and 3 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3.
9. PW.1 Shivaswamy retired ASI. He deposed that on 12/07/2016 at about 10.45 pm when he was on station duty at that time complainant came to Police Station and filed complaint as per Ex.P.1 against the accused and he registered the FIR as per Ex.P.2 against the accused and he handed over the case papers to CW.10 for further investigation. The learned counsel for accused has cross- examined him. Further he has denied the bare suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for accused.
10. PW.2 Rajanna ASI. He deposed that on 12/07/2016 complainant took himself and CW.3 on the basis of 7 complaint given by CW.6 - Sri.T.Manimaran, Senior Manager of EIPR India Private Limited, and they went to the shop of accused situated at Ratan Stationary World, Marathhalli, by the side of Tulasi theater. Further he deposed that CW.6 and CW.1 went to the shop of accused and verified the duplicate toners from the shop of accused and seized the same and drawn panchanama as per Ex.P.3. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined him. Further he has denied the bare suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for accused.
11. It is relevant to note that the prosecution has cited 11 witnesses out of that they examined two witnesses CW.2 and CW.9 as PW.1 and PW.2. This Court issued process of summons, warrants through local police officers and higher police officers particularly Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, the prosecution has utterly failed to secure the presence of CW.1, CW.3 to CW.8, CW.10 and CW.11. Therefore, this Court dropped out the said witnesses on 8 16/07/2022. When case stood for recording of statement u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. the prosecution filed application for recall of CW.10 and CW.11 on 18/07/2022. This Court passed considered order by giving reasons and rejected the said application filed by the prosecution. There is no material from prosecution they challenged their order passed by this Court on 18/7/2022. Therefore, this Court proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no supporting evidence from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
12. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 68 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 483, 486 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.9
The bail bond and surety bond of accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of July 2022).
(R.Mahesha) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW.1: Shivaswamy PW.2: Rajanna.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.3 : Panchanama.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
- NIL -
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
- NIL -
List of documents and materials marked on behalf of the defence:
- NIL -
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bengaluru.10
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 68 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 483, 486 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused stands cancelled.
IX ACMM, Bengaluru.