Bangalore District Court
State By Upparapet Police Station vs No.1 Being The Owner Of Sancos Shop And ... on 21 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 21st day of August 2015
Present : Sri.J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No 21684/2013
2.Date of Offence 26-8-2013
3.Complainant State by Upparapet Police Station
4.Accused 1. Khadar S/o. Mohammed Kutti,
Aged 33 years, No.25, Saritha
Complex, Sancose Stores,
K.G.Circle, Majestic, Bangalore.
2. Mansoor S/o. Abubekar, aged 32
years, No.4/1, 1st Cross, Mansoor
Street, Cottonpet, Bangalore.
3. Ibrahim S/o. Abubekar, aged 22
years, No.4/1, 1st Cross, Mansoor
Street, Cottonpet, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.51(a), (b) and 63 of Copyright
of Act
6. Plea Accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not
guilty.
7. Final Order Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted
8. Date of Order 21-8-2015
2 C.C.No.21684/2013.
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Upparapet Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused
Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under section 51(a), (b)
and 63 of Copyright Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
26-8-2013 in Sancos Shop and Laloo Trading Company shop
situated at Saritha Complex, K.G.road, Gandhinagar,
Bangalore within the limits of Upparapet Police Station the
accused No.1 being the owner of Sancos Shop and accused
No.3 being the worker in the said shop and accused No.2
being the owner of Laloo Trading Company were found in
possession and selling of counterfeit purse and caps in the
name of Locasto brand over which IPR vigilance (India) Ltd.,
Group of Companies had copyright without there being any
authorisation or written consent from the copyright holder and
thereby infringed the copyright and further were selling the
same to the general public as if the said products are supplied
by copyright holder company and cheated the copyright holder
company as well as general public and committed aforesaid
offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are on bail. On receipt of
chargesheet, this court took cognizance of the offences and
3 C.C.No.21684/2013.
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
persons. After hearing on charges, this court framed the
charge for the offences punishable under section 63 of
Copyright Act and section 420 of IPC for which the accused
persons pleaded not guilty, and claims to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case got
examined only one witness as P.W.1 and got marked only one
document at Exs.P.1. Since, C.Ws.1, 3 to 6 did not turn up
before this court, by rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP, this court
dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Since, there is no incriminating evidence against the
accused Nos.1 to 3, their statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.,
is dispensed with.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove the guilt against accused
Nos.1 to 3 has examined only one witness by name Manohar.
P.W.1 Manohar is the independent seizure mahazar witness.
Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities the prosecution has
not examined other witnesses on record. The testimony of
P.W.1 indicating that on 26-8-2013 the PSI of Upparapet
Police Station took him to Laloo Trading Company shops at
Balepete. In the said shop they found six spurious purse and
fifty spurious caps in the name of Locasto brand. The PSI of
4 C.C.No.21684/2013.
his police station seized the same by preparing the seizure
mahazar. His evidence further indicating that the police have
not prepared any mahazar in his presence and not seized any
material objects. He identified the accused No.1 as the person
who was present in the above-referred shop on the date of
raid. The PSI has conducted the seizer and brought to the
police station. His signature was obtained to the seizure
mahazar in the police station but no mahazar was prepared
and no spurious products are seized in his presence. P.W.1
has identified the spurious caps and purse as M.Os-1 and 2.
Since P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution, the
learned Sr.APP., treated this witness as hostile and further
cross examined him. In the cross examination P.W.1 has
denied the suggestion that on 26-8-2013 the Upparapet police
visited the shop of accused No.1, prepared the mahazar on the
spot itself and obtained his signature. However, he admitted
the suggestion that the accused No.2 Mansoor was present in
the said shop. Further he denied the suggestion that the
police prepared the seizer mahazar in the above referred two
shops and obtained his signature. However, he voluntary
stated that he affixed his one signature on the spot and
another in the police station. In my opinion, the testimony of
P.W.1 is not trustworthy to believe. In my further opinion, in
order to believe the testimony of P.W.1 corroboration by other
witnesses is necessary.
5 C.C.No.21684/2013.
8. As stated above, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. In a case like this, the offences has to be
proved in a circumstantial evidence by way of proving the
seizure mahazar of seized spurious products in the name of
Locasto brand over which I.P.R vigilance (India) Ltd., company
had copyright. Further the prosecution has to prove that the
seized products are spurious, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are the
owners of Sancos shop and Laloo Trading Company shops
respectively. Further the prosecution has to prove that I.P.R
vigilance (India) Ltd., Group of Company had copyright over
the brand Locasto. In the instant case the prosecution to
prove the seizure mahazar has examined only one witness but
the evidence of said witness is not trust worthy to believe. As
stated above, at the repetition of cost, inspite of giving
sufficient opportunities the prosecution has not examined
other witnesses on record. Therefore, the prosecution has
failed to prove seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.1 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
9. Further the prosecution has not examined any
witnesses, has not got marked any documents to prove that
the seized products are spurious and I.P.R vigilance (India)
Ltd., Group of Companies had copyright over the brand
Locasto and further the accused Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of
above referred shops. Therefore, having regard to the evidence
6 C.C.No.21684/2013.
on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution
has failed to prove guilt against accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all
reasonable doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s. 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
The property M.Os.1 and 2 are 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 21st day of August 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Manohar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION: NIL 7 C.C.No.21684/2013. Ex.P.1 Mahazar Ex.P.1(a) Signature LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
M.Os.1 and 2 caps and purses LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.8 C.C.No.21684/2013.
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s. 63 of Copyright Act 1957, and section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. The property M.Os.1 and 2 are being worthless shall be destroyed, after appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.