Delhi District Court
State vs Yogesh Chhabra on 24 March, 2026
Cr. Case No. 947/2020
State v. Yogesh Chhabra and Ravi Batra Digitally
FIR No. 346/2019
signed by
HARSHITA
HARSHITA MISHRA
PS: Karol Bagh MISHRA Date:
2026.03.25
12:54:51
+0530
24.03.2026
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Both the accused persons with Ld. counsel.
No PW is present.
Sh. Harshit Singla, Deputy Manager (Parts), TVS Motor
Company, in person with Authorization Letter.
Sh. Harshit Singla, Deputy Manager (Parts), TVS Motor
Company, is carrying two authorization letters from Akhilesh Chandra Vijay,
Vice President, (Parts), TVS Motor Company. As per the said letters, Mr. K.
Venkateshwarlu, former Sr. VP, Parts, TVS Motor. Co. Ltd, and Mr. K.
Ananth Kumar, Senior Manager, Parts, TVS Motor Co. Ltd., had left the
company and their whereabouts were not known to the company. Mr. Harshit
Singla had been deputed to represent the TVS Motor Company Ltd. before
this Court and to act on behalf of Company in the present matter. The said
letters are taken on record.
Perusal of the record reveals that chargesheet in the instant
matter was filed on 22.01.2020. Cognizance was taken on 23.08.2022 and
charge was framed against both the accused on 06.03.2023. On 13.10.2025,
PW Sanjay Kumar, the original complainant, was examined and cross-
examined. The said witness turned totally hostile.
It is now noted that both, Mr. K. Venkateshwarlu, former Sr. VP,
Parts, TVS Motor Co. Ltd, and Mr. K. Ananth Kumar, Senior Manager, Parts,
TVS Motor Co. Ltd., have left the services at TVS Motor Co. Ltd. No fruitful
Page No.1/9
purpose would now be served by examining Sh. Harshit Singla, in their
place, as the main complainant has already turned hostile in toto.
Ld. APP for the State submits that the other witnesses are merely
formal/ official/ police witnesses whose testimonies would be
inconsequential when the complainant has turned hostile totally.
Heard submissions and perused the record.
Perusal of the record reveals that all other witnesses listed in the
list of witnesses annexed with the charge-sheet are either police witnesses or
the officials of EIPR, TVS Motor Co. Ltd., Copyrights Registry etc. The
testimonies of these witnesses would be inconsequential when the original
complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant,
was the main pivot of the case, who set the criminal law in motion and he is
the one who has now deserted the cause of the prosecution. The examination
of other witnesses thus, becomes an exercise in futility. Accordingly, they are
also dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined. PE is hereby, closed.
Nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused
person and accordingly, the recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.
PC is also being dispensed with. Accused has opted not to lead DE. Same has
accordingly been closed.
Final arguments heard.
This court is now pronouncing the judgment based on oral
dictation in court.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page No.2/9
1. The present case emerges from a complaint alleging the infringement of intellectual property rights, specifically under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trademarks Act, 1999. The prosecution asserts that on 28.08.2019, at an unknown, at Yogesh Motorcycle House, Shop No. 1482/24, Third Floor, Naiwalan, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, accused Yogesh Chhabra was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious products, bearing the falsified products with infringed/ deceptive similar to copyright of Logo/Label of M/s TVS Motor Company Ltd. Likewise, on the same day, at Ravi Auto Part, Shop No. 1833/50, Naiwalan, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, accused Ravi Batra, was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious products, bearing the falsified products with infringed/ deceptive similar to copyright of Logo/Label of M/s TVS Motor Company Ltd. The said goods were seized. These seized products shamelessly imitated the proprietary marks and copyrighted works of M/s TVS Motor Company Ltd.
2. The genesis of the trial lies in an FIR registered on 28.08.2019, based on the complaint filed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, official of EIPR, authorized by the company to lodge the complaint and testify in the matter. The prosecution sought to prove that the seized goods were 'colorable imitations' intended to deceive the public and cause financial loss to the rightful owner.
3. The IO SI Rajender Singh, conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet on 22.01.2020. Cognizance was taken on 23.08.2022. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons and charge was formally framed under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act Page No.3/9 against both the accused persons on 06.03.2023. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. PE was recorded till date. The complainant Sanjay Kumar was examined as a witness on 13.10.2025. He turned totally hostile. His testimony in brief is recorded herein under.
5. PW Sanjay Kumar deposed that during the relevant period, he had been serving as an Investigating Officer in M/s EIPR (India) Pvt. Ltd.) at its Jhandewalan Branch, Delhi. His company had a contract with TVS motor company and Bajaj Auto Ltd., for the purpose of identifying counterfeit products and conducting surprise raids. He stated that he had left the company in 2022-2023. He did not remember the date and year when the raid in this case was conducted on the shops of the accused. He also did not remember the addresses of the said shops. He couldn't identify accused Yogesh Chhabra and Ravi Batra. He also couldn't remember whether the accused persons were present at the premises in question on the date of raid. When the Ld. APP for the State cross- examined him, he stated that he did not know whether he had raided the premises in question alongwith the police officials. He also could not remember whether he had signed on the seizure memos prepared in the matter. He didn't remember whether the accused persons were arrested in his presence. He however, admitted his signatures on the seizure memos and arrest memos. He admitted that in the past he had conducted many raids in the Karol Bagh area alongwith police officials and he admitted his signature on the complaint. He could however, not identify the accused persons in the Court.
Page No.4/96. Other witnesses were also dropped on 24.03.2026, noting the submissions of the Ld. APP for the State.
7. Considering that there was no incriminating material on record against the accused, the recording of the statement of the accused under S. 313 (2) CrPC was dispensed with. Similarly, without any evidence implicating the accused, no purpose was to be served by requiring him to lead defence evidence. Accused submitted that he did not wish to lead any defence evidence. Therefore, the right to lead DE was closed.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
9. The following point arises for determination in the present case:
Whether the accused persons were applying false trademarks and false description on their products to sell the same as products of TVS Motorcorps and whether counterfeit products were recovered from their shops on the day of the raid and whether they were infringing on the copyrights of the said company?
10. The cornerstone of any criminal prosecution for IPR infringement is the testimony of the Right Holder or the original complainant who has been authorised to file the complaint. It is the complainant who must step into the witness box to: establish the ownership of the Copyright; compare the seized goods with the original products; and depose categorically that no license or authority was ever granted to the accused. In any criminal trial, the testimony of the complainant is the bedrock upon which the edifice of the Page No.5/9 prosecution's case is built. Witnesses are the 'eyes and ears of Justice,' and it is through their lens that the Court reconstructs the events of the past. The burden lies squarely upon the State to prove, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, not only that a crime was committed but that the persons standing in the dock are the perpetrators of the said crime.
11. In the present matter, the complainant has turned hostile. In a startling departure from his previous statement recorded under the investigative process, PW-1 displayed what can only be described as an absolute amnesia. During his examination-in-chief, despite the accused persons being present in the courtroom, the witness categorically stated that he did not recognize the accused person from whose possession the counterfeit goods were allegedly seized. The witness was unable to recall the specific date of the raid, nor could he identify the venue or the location of the shops where the alleged recovery took place. This development has left the prosecution's case with a gaping evidentiary hole. Under the Indian evidence framework (now governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), while the testimony of a hostile witness is not discarded in its entirety, it must be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny. In the present instance, the hostility of the complainant is not merely tangential; it is central.
12. When the person who allegedly set the law in motion fails to identify the accused and cannot even recall the basic topography of the crime scene, a vacuum is created in the prosecution's evidence. The link between the seized counterfeit products and the accused remains unestablished. A 'raid' without a recognizable location and an Page No.6/9 'offender' without a recognizable face reduces the prosecution's story to a mere collection of documents unsupported by oral truth. The court cannot fill the gaps left by a witness who refuses to support the truth.
13. Criminal jurisprudence does not permit conviction based on suspicion, no matter how strong, or based on recovery memos that are not backed by credible ocular testimony. The failure of the EIPR employee--the very individual trained to identify such infringements
--to identify the accused in court strikes a fatal blow to the prosecution's case. The investigation, however diligent it may have appeared on paper, loses its soul when the complainant turns his back on his own allegations.
14. The testimonies of the Investigating Officer (IO) and the other recovery witnesses (police officials), would not be sufficient to prove the prosecution's case as these witnesses are official witnesses and their testimony would suffer from a structural limitation in IPR litigation. These police witnesses could, at best, prove the factum of recovery--that certain items were seized from the accused. However, they were not experts in the specific artistic nuances of the complainant's copyright, nor were they the custodians of the trademark/ copyright's goodwill. When the complainant failed to support the prosecution's case, the police testimony regarding the counterfeit nature of the goods would have remained mere hearsay. A police officer cannot substitute his opinion for the specific knowledge of the Trademark owner regarding the authenticity of a product. With the complainant turning hostile, there is no primary evidence to contrast the 'infringing products' with the 'original products'. The Page No.7/9 essential ingredients of Section 63 of the Copyrights Act remains unproven.
15. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases involving intellectual property, the 'person aggrieved' is the best witness to establish the breach. When the complainant--the very soul of the prosecution--chooses to turn hostile, a strong adverse inference must be drawn. The official witnesses cannot fill in the evidentiary void created by the absence of the complainant.
16. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. To keep a criminal trial pending indefinitely when the star witness shows no interest in the prosecution is a travesty of justice and a waste of precious judicial time. The complainant's hostility has created an irreparable evidentiary void which couldn't be filled up by the testimonies of the police/ official witnesses alone and for this reason, this court has dispensed with their examination.
17. The law is well-settled: The testimony of police officials, while sufficient to prove procedural aspects of a raid, cannot be the sole basis for conviction in IPR cases where the primary right-holder has abandoned the proceedings.
18. Justice cannot be served on the crutches of incomplete evidence. The complainant's hostility has created a void that no amount of official testimony can bridge.
19. In the present case, there is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that the accused had infringed the trademark of M/s Page No.8/9 TVS Motor Co. Ltd. Mere filing of a chargesheet or existence of allegations in the complaint cannot take the place of proof. It is also well settled that no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused for the lapses or inaction on the part of the prosecution or the complainant. The accused cannot be made to suffer the ordeal of a criminal trial when the prosecution itself has failed to discharge its primary burden. The law cannot presume infringement; it must be proven by those who claim to be infringed. As the essential link in the chain of evidence is missing, the Prosecution has failed to discharge its burden.
20. Justice cannot be served on the altar of uncertainty. When the light of evidence is extinguished by the hostility of the complainant, the only path remaining for the Court is the one that leads to the protection of the liberty of the accused. The accused persons namely Yogesh Chhabra and Ravi Batra, are accordingly, entitled to the benefit of the doubt, as the very foundation of the charge--the lack of authorization and the identity of the original products--has not been legally established. They are acquitted of the charges under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act.
21. Bail bond and surety bonds of the accused persons to continue to remain in force for a period of six months from today.
22. Copy of this order cum judgment be given dasti to the accused persons/ their counsel against due acknowledgement.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(HARSHITA MISHRA) CJM/(Central)/THC/Delhi 24.03.2026 Page No.9/9