Delhi District Court
State vs Avtar Singh on 4 April, 2026
State v. Avtar Singh and Ors. Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 276/2013 HARSHITA
HARSHITA
MISHRA
MISHRA Date:
PS Crime Branch 2026.04.06
15:10:01
04.04.2026 +0530
Present: Sh. Amit Yadav, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Ankit Tuli, Ld. Counsel for all accused except accused Avtar
Singh, who is an absconder.
Accused namely Diljeet Singh, Ramesh Ajmani, Manish Gupta,
Inderjeet Singh, Angpal Singh and Darshan Lal in person.
None for the complainant despite repeated calls since morning.
No PW is present.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present case, born in the year 2013, has traversed a long and weary path through the corridors of time, carrying with it the weight of allegations of copyright infringement against the accused namely Avtar Singh, Diljeet Singh, Ramesh Ajmani, Manish Gupta, Inderjeet Singh, Angpal Singh and Darshan Lal. Yet, as the sands of time have steadily slipped through the hourglass, the edifice of the prosecution has not been fortified by evidence, but instead has eroded and weakened substantially on account of persistent absence or silence of the complainant and the expert from the aggrieved company.
2. The criminal justice system, though patient, is not unendingly tolerant of inertia. Justice must not only be done, but must also be done within a reasonable time, lest delay itself becomes a form of injustice.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that from 19.10.2013 till 23.10.2023, the accused persons namely Avtar Singh, Diljeet Singh, Ramesh Ajmani, Manish Gupta, Inderjeet Singh, Angpal Singh and Page No. 1/8 Digitally signed by HARSHITA HARSHITA MISHRA MISHRA Date:
2026.04.06 16:25:12 +0530 Darshan Lal, were found in possession of infringed/counterfeit products of M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., at their respective shops located at Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh or in Old Lajpat Rain Nagar Market, Delhi, thereby infringing the copyright of M/s Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. It was alleged that such possession and use amounted to violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, thereby inviting penal consequences.
4. The complainant company, claiming proprietary rights over the copyrighted material, initiated the present proceedings through one Surender Kumar, an officer of EIPR. Sh. Rattan Pal Singh, a senior Investigator from EIPR, was also cited as a material witness to establish the authenticity of the copyright and the alleged infringement.
5. The record reveals that after institution of the case in 2013, chargesheet was filed by the IO on 15.10.2016. Cognizance of the offences under Section 63 Copyrights Act was taken on 12.12.2017 and copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused on their appearance on 18.04.2018, when they duly appeared before the Court. On 05.02.2020, charges were framed against all the accused persons namely Diljeet Singh, Ramesh Ajmani, Manish Gupta, Inderjeet Singh, Angpal Singh and Darshan Lal (except against accused Avtar Singh, who has remained absent throughout the proceedings and was labelled an absconder in 2022). Ever since 05.02.2020, the matter has been pending for recording of prosecution evidence.
6. However, what followed was not the unfolding of evidence, but a persistent absence thereof. Repeated opportunities were granted to the complainant to lead evidence. Summons were issued Page No. 2/8 time and again to the complainant and the expert witness from the company. Coercive steps were also contemplated and, where appropriate, initiated against PW Surender Kumar, as can be borne out from the ordersheets. PW Rattan Pal Singh, was also summoned. However, both the witnesses failed to turn up. Vide order dated 14.01.2026, PE had been closed. This Court had observed that despite multiple opportunities being given to the prosecution to examine the complainant Surender Kumar, he had not been examined. Several dates had been sought on his behalf to furnish documents, but the same were not furnished. Even on 06.09.2025, last and final opportunity was given to the complainant to appear in court to testify alongwith the original documents. However, he did not appeared on 14.01.2026.
Even PW Ratan Pal Singh, who was also from EIPR, had not appeared despite timely service of summons. This court had noted that the complainant and officials from the complainant concern were not diligently pursuing the present matter. Their conduct was defeating the right to speedy trial of the accused persons, which has been recognised time and again by the constitutional courts. Accordingly, considering the casual approach of the complainant Surender and PW Ratan Pal Singh, the said witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined. All other witnesses in the list of witnesses, from serial no. 3 to 9 were police witnesses. Since their testimony alone, without the testimony of the complainant as well as PW Ratan Pal Singh, would have been of no evidentiary import, their examination was also dispensed with and PE was closed on 14.01.2026. Recording of statement of the accused persons and recording of DE was also Page No. 3/8 dispensed with. However, on 14.01.2026, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant appeared alongwith complainant Surender in the post lunch session and sought a recall of the order passed in the forenoon session. This Court had noted that the present case highlighted a distressing trend in intellectual property litigation, where the criminal machinery of the State was set into motion with great fanfare, only to be abandoned in the cold corridors of the courthouse by the very entity that sought its protection. This Court had noted that its docket is replete with instances where the matter was adjourned simply because the witnesses, who are often employees or authorized representatives of the Complainant Company, failed to appear. This is a case of pure, unadulterated institutional lethargy. The Trademark Act and the Copyright Act provide stringent criminal remedies to protect the intellectual labor and commercial reputation of companies. However, these provisions are intended to be a shield against piracy, not a tool to keep a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the accused indefinitely. This Court had noted that by failing to produce witnesses and ignoring the summons of this Court, the Complainant had shown a blatant disregard for the seriousness of criminal proceedings. It appeared the Complainant was content with the mere registration of the FIR and the framing of charges, using the pendency of this criminal case as leverage in commercial negotiations rather than seeking a judicial conclusion on merits. This Court had further noted that the right to a speedy trial is not a mere procedural formality; it is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. An accused person, presumed innocent until proven guilty, cannot be Page No. 4/8 subjected to the rigors of a criminal trial that has no foreseeable end due to the complainant's whims. For more than 11-12 years, the accused persons have been forced to attend court hearings, engage counsel, and endure the social and professional stigma of a pending criminal case. Public resources, judicial time, and police machinery are being squandered on a case where the 'aggrieved party' itself shows no interest in the truth. The court is not a resting place for dormant litigations. If a complainant chooses to invoke the criminal law, they must bear the burden of pursuing it with diligence. Silence and absence in the witness box is to be construed as an abandonment of the cause. This Court had noted that it couldn't be a silent spectator to the mockery of the legal process. The Complainant was reminded that he was not doing a favor to the Court by appearing; it is under a legal obligation to assist the State in the administration of justice. The conduct of the Complainant was severely deprecated. However, in the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is granted to the Complainant and PW Ratan Pal Singh, to depose in the matter subject to a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited by the complainant in the account of DLSA Central, Tis Hazari, on or before the NDOH.
7. Yet, despite the indulgence shown by this Court and the latitude extended in the interest of justice, the complainant and the expert witness again failed to appear in Court and step into the witness box on 04.04.2026. Their absence remained unexplained and continuous. The Court cannot remain a silent spectator to such indifference. Judicial time is not an inexhaustible resource, and the Page No. 5/8 process of law cannot be held hostage to the whims or neglect of a litigant.
8. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden lies squarely upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts. In the present matter, the complainant has failed to adduce even the foundational evidence necessary to establish: ownership of the alleged copyrighted products, existence of valid copyright, nature and extent of alleged infringement, connection of the accused persons with the alleged offence. The non- appearance of the complainant and the expert witness has left the prosecution case devoid of substance. There is no testimony, no documentary proof duly exhibited, and no admissible evidence upon which this Court can base a finding of guilt.
9. The case of the prosecution, thus, stands unproven--not for want of opportunity, but for want of effort.
10. The right of an accused to a speedy trial is not a mere procedural formality; it is a fundamental facet of fair trial, deeply embedded within the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Over the years, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judicial pronouncements, has underscored that inordinate delay in trial is itself a violation of fundamental rights. In the present case, the accused persons have remained under the shadow of criminal prosecution for over a decade. The sword of uncertainty has hung over the accused since 2013, without the prosecution making any meaningful progress toward establishing its allegations. Such protracted delay, coupled with Page No. 6/8 complete inaction on the part of the complainant, renders the continuation of proceedings not only futile but also oppressive. The criminal process cannot be permitted to become a punishment in itself. The conduct of the complainant in failing to appear and prosecute the case, despite repeated opportunities, reflects a lack of diligence and seriousness. The machinery of criminal law cannot be set in motion lightly and then abandoned midway. To allow the proceedings to linger endlessly in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. This Court deems it appropriate to observe that justice is a delicate balance between the rights of the victim and the rights of the accused. While the law zealously protects intellectual property, it equally guards against the misuse or neglect of criminal process. A prosecution that begins with assertion must culminate in proof. Where proof is absent, the law must speak in the voice of acquittal.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that: The prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to substantiate the allegations; the complainant and the expert witness have failed to appear despite multiple opportunities; the accused has suffered prolonged trial for no fault of his own; the right to speedy trial stands infringed. In criminal law, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. In the absence of any evidence, the only conclusion that this Court can arrive at is one of acquittal.
12. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Diljeet Singh, Ramesh Ajmani, Manish Gupta, Inderjeet Singh, Angpal Singh and Darshan Lal are hereby acquitted of all charges in the present case.
Page No. 7/813. The bail bonds and surety bonds already on record, to continue to remain in force for a period of 06 months from today.
14. Copy of this Judgment be provided free of cost to the accused persons/ their counsel, against due acknowledgment.
15. File be consigned to the Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance.
by HARSHITA HARSHITA MISHRA MISHRA Date:
2026.04.06 15:10:08 +0530 (HARSHITA MISHRA) CJM/(Central)/THC/Delhi 04.04.2026 Page No. 8/8