Delhi District Court
State vs . Sucha Nand Bajaj on 14 August, 2013
1 IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K. JANGALA: ACMM/NW/ROHINI COURT/DELHI State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj FIR No. 320/02 PS: Keshav Puram U/s 63/68A Copyright Act Case ID No. 02404R1002692003 JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : 142/3
B) The date of commission : 06.09.2002
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : SI Vinod Gandhi
IPR Section, EOW,
Crime Branch, New Delhi
D) The name & address of accused : Sucha Nand Bajaj s/o Sh. Hari Ram
Bajaj
R/o 67C, Ayodhya Enclave, Sector 13,
Rohini, Delhi
E) Offences complained of : U/s 63/68A Copyright Act
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
G) Final order : Acquitted
H) The date of such order : 14.08.2013
Date of Institution : 31.10.03
Judgment reserved on : 23.07.13
Judgment announced on: 14.08.13
FIR No. 320/02 State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj Page No. 1/10
2
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGEMENT:
1. The present FIR was registered on the statement of SI Vinod Gandhi from IPR Section, EOW, Crime Branch, New Delhi. The complainant alleged that on 06.09.02 on receipt of the secret information, the ACP IPR directed him to conduct the raid. The complainant further alleged that thereafter a raiding party was prepared under the supervision of Inspector D.P.Joshi and reached near MCD Adarsh Vidhyalya, C8 Block, Keshav Puram, Delhi. The complainant further alleged that the information was shared to all the members of raiding party and 45 public persons were requested to join the raiding party but none agreed. The complainant alleged that they reached at one room in site no. S1, C8, Shri Ram Market, Flyover Road, Keshav Puram Delhi at about 8.45 pm where one Sh. Amit Sharma was found present. It is alleged that Sh. Amit Sharma disclosed that room is used by Sucha Nand Bajaj owner of Bajaj Cables for broadcasting the TV signals to the cable customers. The complainant further alleged that in the said room electronics equipments used for broadcast/receiving the TV signals were found alongwith television & VCD players, one Hindi movie staring Amitabh Bachhan was found running on the television in the room. The complainant further alleged that Sh. Amit Sharma stated that Sucha Nand Bajaj had played this Hindi movie "Aankhen" through the VCD player to the cable subscribers and left the room. It is alleged that Hindi Movie 'Aankhen' was being telecasted through the cable network by infringing the copyright Act. It is alleged that all the equipments were seized and FIR No. 320/02 State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj Page No. 2/10 3 rukka was prepared and FIR was got registered. It is alleged that offence punishable u/s 63/68A Copyright Act is committed. It is stated that accused Sucha Nand Bajaj was interrogated and arrested in this case. It is further reported that the reel was taken for developing to the photographer but due to some technical reason the same could not be developed.
2. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and after completion of necessary formalities the charge for the commission of the offence punishable u/s 63/68A Copyright Act was framed upon the accused on 09.08.05 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The provision to prove its case examined six witnesses. The relevant and material extract of the evidence produced by the prosecution are as under: PW1 Sh. Sh. Manoj Bakshi deposed that he was having four rooms at S1/C8, Shri Ram Market, Keshav Puram, Delhi. He deposed that out of said four rooms, one room was given on rent to accused Sucha Nand Bajaj. He deposed that there was no written agreement between him and accused regarding tenancy.
During cross examination, PW1 admitted that premises in question was used as store room by the accused.
PW2 ASI Jai Prakash is formal witness who recorded the FIR on the basis of rukka. Copy of the FIR is proved as Ex.PW2/A. PW3 Sh. G.D.Mehta Proprietor of M/s Boby Arts produced power of attorney executed on 23.03.02 by Mr. Vinod Doshi Producer of feature film Aankhey. Copy of FIR No. 320/02 State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj Page No. 3/10 4 the same is proved as Ex.PW3/A. During cross examination, PW3 admitted that police never met him in connection of this case.
PW4 Sh. Atul Kumar Public Relation Inspector Ashok Vihar Post Office deposed that he has not brought the original certificate of registration of Sucha Nand Bajaj bearing registration no. AVCVTC registered in the year 2002 from 06.06.02 to 05.06.03. It is further deposed that the said record has been destroyed at the time of cleaning of the post office. The report of Senior Post Master is proved as Ex.PW4/A. PW5 ASI Vinod Kumar deposed that on 06.09.02 he joined the raiding party with SI Vinod Gandhi. He deposed that SI Vinod Gandhi stopped the taxi near MCD Adarsh School in C8 Block, Keshav Puram and requested 45 public persons to join the raiding party but none agreed. He further deposed that without wasting the time they proceeded for the spot and reached there at about 8.30 or 8.35 pm. PW5 further deposed that the control room was situated at the ground floor of the premises no. C8, Keshav Puram. He further deposed that when they entered into the said control room one person namely Amit Sharma was found present there and he told that he was working as servant since 15 days with Sucha Nand Bajaj. He further deposed that Sh. Amit Sharma disclosed that Sucha Nand Bajaj is the owner of this control room and he was merely a servant. It is stated that one cover of VCD with an inlay card of film "Aankhen" and one CD of film "Aankhen" was FIR No. 320/02 State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj Page No. 4/10 5 found. It is stated that CD of film "Aankhen" was being played and Sh. Amit Sharma disclosed that CD was started by Sucha Nand Bajaj about half an hour ago. PW5 further deposed that all the equipments were seized and taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. PW5 further deposed that search for the accused was made but he could not be traced out. PW5 further deposed that rukka was prepared and the FIR was got registered. PW5 correctly identified the case property. It is pertinent to mention that articles were produced in the Court in unsealed condition.
During cross examination, PW5 admitted that the members of the raiding party were briefed on the road near MCD School. PW5 stated that he can not tell about the procedure/working/technicalities to broadcast the cable network for displaying the movie. It is stated that sign board was reflecting the name as Bajaj Cable.
PW6 Inspector Vinod Gandhi deposed that on 06.09.02 he was posted as SI in IPR Section EOW. He deposed that on receipt of secret information a raiding party was prepared and they went to the spot. He deposed that they requested 78 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. PW6 deposed that they reached the premises of Bajaj Cable at about 8.30 pm where one boy namely Amit Sharma met them. He deposed that they saw one TV, VCD and other equipments necessary for broadcasting the movie were lying there and one movie namely "Aankhen" was found played in TV. It is further deposed that said person Amit FIR No. 320/02 State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj Page No. 5/10 6 Sharma informed that the owner of M/s Bajaj Cables was Sucha Nand Bajaj who had started the movie and went away prior to just half an hour. PW6 deposed that all the articles lying there were seized. PW6 correctly identified the case property.
During cross examination, PW6 admitted that he had no expertise in technicalities of the functioning of equipments connected with VCD. It is stated that he can not tell frequency on which cable network is displayed. It is denied that accused is falsely implicated in the present case.
4. The statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C whereby the accused denied the story of prosecution and stated that he is falsely implicated in the present case.
5. I have carefully perused the material on record and have gone through the submissions of Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. It is submitted by Ld. APP for the state that in the present case, PW5 and PW6 are the recovery witnesses. It is submitted that both the PWs have correctly identified by the accused and case property, therefore, it is prayed that accused may kindly be convicted for the commission of the alleged offences.
7. On the other hand it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that accused is falsely implicated in the present case and there is no material on record against the accused. It is stated that PW3 Sh. G.D.Mehta owner of the copyright has admitted that he never made any complaint against the accused for telecasting of movie. It is stated that PW5 ASI Vinod Kumar and PW6 Inspector Vinod Gandhi FIR No. 320/02 State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj Page No. 6/10 7 are the members of raiding party but there appears material contradiction in their testimonies. It is stated that both the witness have admitted that they are not the technical expert and they are not aware about the instruments. It is stated that prosecution witnesses have deposed that the alleged raid was conducted at the control room of cable network owned by accused Sucha Nand Bajaj but the PW1 Sh. Manoj Bakshi owner of the said premises has deposed that the accused was using the same for store room purpose. It is further stated that the alleged employee Sh. Amit Sharma was not examined by the police. It is stated that confessional statement made by Sh. Amit Sharma is not admissible.
8. In the present case it is alleged against the accused Sucha Nand Bajaj that on 06.09.2002 at about 8.30 or 8.30 pm he was found running and telecasting pirated Hindi movie namely "Aankhen" on his cable TV and he was found in illegal possession of VCD which did not have the details as required u/s 52A of Copyright Act. It is alleged that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 63/68A of Copyright Act.
9. The prosecution has examined six PWs to prove the charge. PW1 Sh. Manoj Bakshi is the owner of said premises where the raid was conducted. PW2 ASI Jai Prakash is formal witness who recorded the FIR. PW3 Sh. G.D.Mehta is the proprietor of M/s Body Art International and attorney of the owner of the Copyright. PW4 Sh. Atal Kumar is also formal witness. In the present case, the prosecution has also examined two witnesses namely PW5 ASI Vinod Kumar and PW6 FIR No. 320/02 State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj Page No. 7/10 8 Inspector Vinod Gandhi who are the recovery witnesses. PW5 and PW6 in their testimonies have deposed that they conducted the raid at the premises S1/C8, Keshav Puram at about 8.30 pm. Both the witnesses have deposed that they have conducted the raid and one person namely Sh. Amit Sharma was found in possession of 'VCD' and film "Aankhen" was being displayed on cable TV network. The present accused was arrested and was being charge sheeted on the disclosure statement of Sh. Amit Sharma. The testimony of PW Sh. Amit Sharma was essential to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offence. It is admitted case of the prosecution that accused was not found present at the spot at the time of raid. The prosecution has not placed on record any other evidence to connect the accused Sucha Nand Bajaj for commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to bring anything on record to show the actual possession of the accused. The relevant witness i.e Sh. Amit Sharma who disclosed the name of accused has not been examined by the prosecution. The accused was arrested in the present case only on disclosure of Sh. Amit Sharma who disclosed to the raiding party that the premises being owned and operated by the present accused. The nonexamination of Sh. Amit Sharma by the prosecution is fatal for the case of the prosecution.
10. It is also pertinent to mention that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the movie "Aankhen" was being displayed in cable TV network. No witness to this effect has been examined or cited by the prosecution FIR No. 320/02 State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj Page No. 8/10 9 that movie was being displayed on cable TV network. The PW5 and PW6 in their cross examination have admitted that they have no knowledge regarding working of cable TV network/system. Neither any expert witness is examined by the prosecution nor any witness is produced by the prosecution to show that film "Aankhen" was being displayed on cable TV network.
11. The PW1 Sh. Manoj Bakshi owner of the premises has also deposed contrary to the story of the prosecution. PW1 in his cross examination has deposed that premises was being used by the accused for store purpose. On the other hand, the prosecution has claimed that the said premises was being used by the accused for running the cable TV network.
12. The accused was not found present at the spot at the time of raid. The prosecution has not produced any evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offences. The prosecution has not placed on record any documentary or oral evidence to show that the accused was running cable TV network from the said premises. The prosecution has also failed to produce on record any material to show that in movie "Aankhen" was displayed on cable TV network.
13. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its charge for commission of the alleged offence punishable u/s 63/68A Copyright Act. Accordingly, accused Sucha Nand Bajaj is acquitted for the charge framed FIR No. 320/02 State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj Page No. 9/10 10 for the commission of the offence punishable u/s 63/68A Copyright Act. His personal bond and surety bond are extended for the period of six months u/s 437(A) Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced in the open Court (DEVENDER KR. JANGALA)
today on 14.08.2013 ACMM (N/W), ROHINI, DELHI
FIR No. 320/02 State Vs. Sucha Nand Bajaj Page No. 10/10