Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Shahid on 10 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAYANK NAYAK, CMM,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
State vs. Mohd. Shahid
FIR No. 284/2003
U/sec.: 63/65 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 78/79 Trade Mark Act
PS : Dilshad Garden
ID number of the case : CR Cases8/CR/2008463941/2015
Date of commission of offence : 12.12.2003
Date of institution of the case : 10.11.2004
Name of the complainant : Shri Tajinder Pal Singh
Name of accused and address : Mohd. Shahid S/o Mohd. Jalaluddin
R/o: H. No. 1/828, Gali no. 5, Village
Khera, G.T.Road, Shahdara,
Delhi. Permanent Address : Village
Dhikoli, PO Khass, PS Chandni Nagar, Baghpat,
U.P.
Offence complained of or proved : U/sec.: 63/65 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 78/79
Trade Mark Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted u/s 63/66/68A of the Copyright Act
and 78/79 Trademark Act.
Date of judgment : 10.01.2024
FIR NO. 284/2003 1 State Vs. Mohd. Shahid
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.12.2003, the accused Mohd. Shahid was found in possession of duplicate wrappers of Tulsi and Baba Jarda at 58A, Damodar Park, 1st Floor, Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi. Accordingly, accused stand charged for infringing the Copyright of complainant and using trademark of complainant without any authority or permission.
2. Ld. APP for the State has argued that case of prosecution has been proved as PW3 & PW4 have corroborated the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that they have proved recovery of duplicate wrappers and also correctly identified the case property. It is also submitted that registration of copyright and trademark has been proved by PW10 and PW12 respectively. Hence, it has been contented that accused may be convicted.
3. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that case of prosecution is doubtful as case property was produced in torn condition and without any seal. Hence, the accused should be given benefit of doubt as per judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled Ranjit Singh v. State of Haryana decided on 23.02.2007. It has been further submitted that investigation has not been conducted by ACP/DSP rank officer as per provision of Trademark Act (Section 115(4) and hence no conviction can be based on such defective investigation. Lastly, it has been submitted that recovery has been rendered doubtful on account of discrepancies in accounts given by recovery witnesses.
4. Prosecution has examined 15 witnesses whereas no witness was examined by defence. The entire case of the prosecution entirely rests upon recovery of incriminating material from the accused. The said recovery is sought to be proved by testimony of FIR NO. 284/2003 2 State Vs. Mohd. Shahid PW3, PW4, PW5 & PW8. PW3 has deposed that on 12.12.2003, he made a complaint Ex.PW-3/A and thereafter a raid was conducted at 58-A, Industrial Area, Damodar Park, Shahdara and spurious products were found. The same was seized vide memo Ex.PW- 3/B. PW4 has deposed that on 12.12.2003, he received a call from Tajender Pal Singh (PW3) that he has to conduct a raid and asked him to reach PS Dilshad Garden. Thereafter, the witnesses alongwith complainant and police officials reached 58-A, Damodar Park, Industrial Area. There they met accused and rolls of Tulsi and Baba were found in huge quantities. PW5 and PW8 have also deposed on similar lines.
5. Court has already heard final arguments from Sh. Jamshed Ansari, Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and perused the entire material available on record carefully.
6. Careful scrutiny of record shows discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. PW3 has deposed that during the said proceedings, one Harish Goel arrived there and remained there. However, PW4 has not deposed anything about presence of Harish Goel during the raid. In fact, Harish Goel himself was examined as PW1 and has not deposed anything about witnessing the raid.
7. Similarly, PW4 has deposed that he received a call from PW3 and thereafter reached the police station and later joined the raid. However, PW3 has not deposed anything about making a phone call to PW4 or PW4 joining the raid proceedings. While PW5 and PW8 have stated in their cross-examination that IO had requested 2-4 persons to join investigation. However, PW3 and PW4 have not stated anything to this effect.
8. Lastly, the testimony of complainant PW3 is doubtful owing to his change in stand during his examination-in-chief and cross-examination. In his examination-in- chief, he stated that seizure memo and arrest memo were prepared on the spot. However, FIR NO. 284/2003 3 State Vs. Mohd. Shahid in his cross-examination he has deposed that case property was sealed in police station and all the documents were prepared in police station.
9. Prosecution has also not been able to explain as how case property came to be unsealed and in torn condition at the time of its production before the court. The investigating officer has also violated the mandate of Section 64(1) of Copyright Act, wherein police is required to produce seized infringing copies of work before the Magistrate as soon as practicable.
10. All aforesaid factors, cumulatively cast doubt over recovery of infringing copies of work, as alleged by prosecution. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt. It is also a settled principle that thought there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused but considered as a whole there is invariably a long distance to travel and whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. This principle of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble apex court in the following cases : Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637; Anil W. Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67; Reddy Sampath W. v. State of A.P, (2005) 7 SCC 603 and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P, (2006) 10 SCC 172.
11. Hence, in view of aforesaid legal position, the case of the prosecution needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the discussion in the preceding paragraphs clearly shows that the case of the prosecution remains doubtful. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Shahid stands acquitted of offence u/s 63/68A/65 of Copyright Act and Section 78/79 of the Trade Mark Act.
FIR NO. 284/2003 4 State Vs. Mohd. Shahid
12. Case property shall stand confiscated to the State and be disposed of as per rules.
This judgment consists of 05 pages and all pages bear my signature.
Announced and dictated directly (Prayank Nayak)
into the computer in the open Court, CMM/North East District/
on 10th January, 2024. KKD/ Delhi/10.01.2024
FIR NO. 284/2003 5 State Vs. Mohd. Shahid