Bangalore District Court
R.Sathish Singh Also Accompanied Them. ... vs Nos.1 To 3 Has Been Acquitted For The ... on 26 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 26th day of November 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.CC No 23869/2011
2.Date of Offence 3-2-2011
3.Complainant State by City Market Police Station
4.Accused 1. Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar
S/o Hamjaramji, aged 30 years,
residing at Police Road, 4th Floor,
Opposite M.K.Sweets, Cottonpet,
Bangalore-02.
2. Praveen Singh S/o Bheem Singh
aged 25 years, No.204, 4th Floor,
Ranasinghpet, Police Road,
Cottonpet, Bangalore.
3. Ramachandraguptha @
Ramalingaguptha S/o Suresh
Shetty, aged 85 years, residing at
No.7, O.T.Pet, Bangalore.
4. Mudaram S/o S.K.K., aged 40
years, residing at Tigalarapet,
Behind Dharmaraya Temple,
Krishnappa Building, Bangalore.
5. Deeparam S/o Sadhaji, aged 40
years, residing at No.19, Behind
2 C.C.No.23869/2011
Steel Bazaar Jataka stand,
Tigalarapet, Behind Dharmaraya
Temple, Krishnappa Building,
Bangalore.
6. Suresh @ Suresh Kumar @
Suresh Anraj Jain, aged 38 years,
residing at No.8, Kumbarapet
Cross, Bangalore-02.
7. Lalith Kumar Jain S/o Anuraj
Jain, aged 28 years, residing at
No.212, Kumbarpet Main Road,
Bangalore.
8. Dilpath @ Dilip @ Dillaram
S/oHamjaramji, aged 30 years,
residing at No.20, 21st Cross,
Ganigarapet, Bangalore-02.
9. Jagathram S/o Amjaram ji, aged
21 years, residing at Near
Ganesha Prasad Hotel,
Cubbonpet, Bangalore City.
10. Bharath Kumar S/o Ragaji,
aged 33 years, residing at
No.29/11, 3rd Floor, Kilari Road,
Chikkapet, Bangalore.
11. Thalaram S/o Figeji, aged 28
years, residing at No.310,
R.T.Street, 22 nd Cross, Kilari
Road, Chikkapet, Bangalore.
12. Prakash @ Prakash Purohit
S/oBheemramji, aged 26 years,
residing at No.100, R.T.street
Main, Opposite Ganesha Temple,
Avenue Road, Bangalore-02.
3 C.C.No.23869/2011
13. Dinesh S/o Bheemji, aged 28
years, No.100, Cubbonpet Main
Road, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s. 51(1), (b) and 63 of Copyright
of Act 1957 and Sec. 420 of IPC
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 to 13 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 to 13 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 26-11-2015
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, City Market Police Station,
Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused
Nos.1 to 13 for the offences punishable U/s.51(1),(b) and 63 of
Copyright Act 1957 and section 420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that in
between 29-1-2011 at 11-00 a.m., to 3-2-2011 at 6-30 p.m., in
Mayur Implex shop, the accused Nos.3 and 4 being its owner
and workers, in M/s M.K.Suraiah Shetty and son's the
accused No.5 being its owner, in M/s. Naresh Implex shop the
accused Nos.6 and 7 being its owners and workers, in M/s
Sun Light Trading Company the accused Nos.8 and 9 being its
owner and worker, in M/s Sri Hingle Raj Trading Company,
the accused Nos.10 and 11 being its owner and worker, in
M/s Ramdev Marketing shop, the accused Nos.12 and 13
being its owner and worker which shops are situated within
4 C.C.No.23869/2011
the limits of City Market Police Station the above named
accused persons were found in possession of counterfeit
calculators in the brand name of Casio over which brand
Casio Computer company limited had copyright without there
being any authorization or written consent from the copyright
holder and further the accused persons were selling the same
to the general public, as if the said calculators are supplied by
the copyright holder company and thereby cheated the
copyright holder companies as well as the general public and
committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 to 13 are on bail. On receipt of
charge sheet copies, this court took cognizance of the offences
and furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the
accused Nos.1 to 13. After hearing on charges, this court has
framed the charge for the offences punishable U/s.63 of
Copyright Act, 1957 and section 420 of IPC and read over to
accused persons in the languages known to them, they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to prove the guilt against accused
Nos.1 to 13 has examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and
got marked 3 documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P3 and also marked
two material objects as per M.Os.1 and 2.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused persons
as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 13
5 C.C.No.23869/2011
denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them and
submitted that they have no defence evidence.
6. I have heard both counsels and perused evidence on
record.
7. As stated above, the prosecution to prove guilt against
accused Nos.1 to 13 has examined two witnesses. P.W.1
T.Cheluve Gowda is the investigation officer who conducted
major investigation. P.W.2 G.Lakshmi Narayana is the head
constable who said to have participated in the raid. It appears,
in spite of giving sufficient opportunities the prosecution has
not examined other witnesses on record.
8. The testimony of P.W.2 G.Lakshminarayana the head
constable indicating that on 3-2-2011 when he was in CCB
office at 10-00 a.m., C.W.8 the police inspector of his CCB
office, took him and his colleagues to the Avenue road based
on the complaint of selling of counterfeit calculator. The
complainant R.Sathish Singh also accompanied them. C.W.8
called C.Ws.2 and 3 as panchas to conduct the raid.
Thereafter, they visited Mayuri flex shop and found one person
by name Praveen Singh the seller. C.W.8 informed the said
Praveen Kumar the purpose of his visit and asked him to
produce the counterfeit calculators. Accordingly, the said
Praveen Singh has produced 18 counterfeit calculators. C.W.1
the complainant herein identified them as counterfeit.
6 C.C.No.23869/2011
Accordingly, C.W.9 has seized the same and cash of Rs.310/-
earned out of selling of counterfeit calculators by preparing the
seizure mahazar and took the custody of said Praveen Singh.
9. His testimony further indicating that thereafter they
visited Hallo implex shop but they did not found any
counterfeit calculator. Thereafter, they visited Suraiah shetty
and son's shop and found one Moodaram the seller. C.W.8
informed said Moodaram the purpose of his visit and asked
him to produce the counterfeit calculators. Accordingly, the
said Moodaram has produced 27 counterfeit calculators.
C.W.1 has identified them as counterfeit. Accordingly, C.W.9
has seized the said counterfeit calculators, cash of Rs.530/-
earned out of selling of counterfeit calculators and one mobile
phone by preparing the seizure mahazar. C.W.9 took the
custody of said Muudaram.
10. His testimony further indicating that thereafter they
visited Metro trading shop but they did not found any
counterfeit calculators. Thereafter, they visited one Naresh
implex shop and found one person by name Deeparam its
owner. C.W.8 has informed said Deeparam the purpose of his
visit and asked him to produce counterfeit calculators.
Accordingly, the said Deeparam has produced 150 counterfeit
calculators. C.W.1 has identified them as counterfeit.
Accordingly, C.W.8 has seized the same by preparing the
seizure mahazar and took the custody of said Deeparam.
7 C.C.No.23869/2011
11. Thereafter, they visited Sunlight trading company
shop and found one person by name Lalith Kumar.J its owner.
C.W.8 has informed said Lalith Kumar.J the purpose of his
visit and asked him to produce counterfeit calculators.
Accordingly, the said Lalith Kumar has produced 72
counterfeit calculators and mobile phone. C.W.1 has identified
them as counterfeit. Accordingly, C.W.8 has seized the same
by preparing the seizure mahazar and took the custody of the
said Lalith Kumar.
12. Thereafter, they visited Hinglaz trading company
shop where they found one person by name Jagathram the
sales man. C.W.8 has informed said Jagathram the purpose
of his visit and asked him to produce counterfeit calculators.
Accordingly, the said Jagathram has produced 168 counterfeit
calculators and mobile phone. C.W.1 has identified the said
calculators as counterfeit. Thereafter, C.W.8 has seized said
calculators and mobile phone by preparing the seizure
mahazar and took the custody of sales man Jagathra.
13. Thereafter, they visited Ramdev Trading Company
shop and found one person by name Thukaram the sales man.
C.W.8 has informed said Thukaram the purpose of his visit
and asked him to produce counterfeit calculators.
Accordingly, the said Thukaram has produced 97 counterfeit
calculators, cash of Rs.400/- and mobile phone. C.W.1 has
identified the said calculators as counterfeit. Accordingly,
8 C.C.No.23869/2011
C.W.8 has seized said calculators, cash and mobile phone by
preparing the seizure mahazar and took the custody of sales
man Thukaram.
14. Thereafter, they visited Inlarge Agencies shop and
found one person by name Dinesh the sales man. C.W.8 has
informed said Dinesh the purpose of his visit and asked him to
produce counterfeit calculators. Accordingly, the said Dinesh
has produced 135 counterfeit calculators, and mobile phone.
C.W.1 has identified the said calculators as counterfeit.
Thereafter, C.W.8 has seized said calculators and one mobile
phone by preparing the seizure mahazar and took the custody
of sales man Dinesh and brought all seized calculators, mobile
phone, cash and accused persons to the City Market Police
Station and handed over to C.W.7 for further investigation.
P.W.1 has identified seized calculators and cash as M.Os.1
and 2. It is to be noted here that, at the request of counsel for
the accused on payment of cost of Rs.250/-, the cross-
examination of P.W.1 was deferred. Subsequently, P.W.1 has
not tendered for cross-examination.
15. The testimony of P.W.1 the investigating officer
indicating that on 3-2-2011 at 8-40 p.m., C.W.8 the inspector
of CCB visited City Market Police Station, handed over
complaint, seized properties and accused persons.
Accordingly, he registered the case and reported the seizer to
the court under P.F.No.9/2011 and recorded the statement of
9 C.C.No.23869/2011
C.Ws.2 to 6. He arrested the accused Nos.2, 4, 7, 9, 11 and
13, enquired them and recorded their voluntary statement. On
4-2-2011, he sent accused persons to the judicial custody.
Thereafter, as per the orders of his higher police officers, he
handed over the case papers to C.W.8 for further investigation.
It appears though P.W.1 subjected to cross-examination but
nothing worth elicited from him to doubt his testimony.
16. As stated above, in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. In a case like this, the offences have to
be, proved in a circumstantial evidence by way of proving the
seizure mahazar of seized counterfeit calculators, mobile
phone and seized cash beyond all reasonable doubt. Further,
the prosecution has to prove that the seized calculators are
counterfeit in the brand name of Casio over which Casio
computers Ltd., had copyright. Further, the prosecution has
to prove that accused persons are the owners and workers of
the above-referred shops. It appears in this case, the
prosecution to prove seizure mahazar has examined only one
witness by name G. Lakshminarayana the head constable who
said to have participated in the raid as P.W.2. Though P.W.2
has supported the case of the prosecution, he has not
tendered for cross-examination. As per well settled law, if the
evidence any witness is recorded in part, for some reason his
further evidence defers, subsequently the said witness did not
turns up before the court either for further examination or for
10 C.C.No.23869/2011
further examination, in such circumstances whatever the part
of evidence of the said witness cannot be taken into
consideration. In the instant case, though P.W.2 has given his
part of evidence, subsequently he has not tendered for cross-
examination. Therefore, whatever the part of evidence given
by P.W.2 cannot be, looked into. Therefore, the prosecution
has failed to prove the seizure mahazar of calculators, cash
and mobile phone beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. It appears the investigating officer has obtained
report from the complainant about seized calculators. In my
opinion, the report submitted by complainant that the seized
calculators are counterfeit cannot be relied upon for the
reason that complainant he is the interested witness who is
always interest in favour of copyright holder company and
naturally he gives report in favoring his company. In my
opinion, the investigating officer ought to have obtained report
from the independent expert. Anyhow, the prosecution has
not examined even the complainant who gave report in respect
of seized calculators. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to
prove that seized calculators are counterfeit.
18. Further the prosecution has not examined any
witnesses and has not been marked any documents to show
that Casio Computers Company limited had copyright over the
Casio calculators. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to
11 C.C.No.23869/2011
prove that Casio Computers Company limited had copyright
over the calculators in the brand name of Casio.
19. Further, the prosecution has not examined any
witnesses and has not been marked any documents to prove
that the accused persons are the owners and workers of the
above-referred shops. Therefore, looking from any angle, I am
of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt against accused Nos.1 to 13 beyond all
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 13 are
entitled for benefit of doubt. In the result, proceed to pass the
following.
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 13 for the offences under section 63 of Copyright Act and Section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 3 has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
M.O.1 counterfeit calculators are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over. M.O.2 cash is confiscated to government after appeal period is over.
12 C.C.No.23869/2011Office to remit cash to the government under proper head by removing from Cr.CD deposit.
The interim order pertaining to release of mobile phones in favour of accused persons made absolute.
(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 26th day of November 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 T.Cheluvegowda P.W.2 G.Lakshminarayana
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Report Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 FIR Ex.P.2(a) Signature Ex.P.3 Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) Signature Ex.P.3(b) to (H) Signature
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
M.O.1 Calculators
M.O.2 Cash
13 C.C.No.23869/2011
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND
MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.14 C.C.No.23869/2011
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 13 for the offences under section 63 of Copyright Act and Section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 3 has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
M.O.1 counterfeit calculators are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over. M.O.2 cash is confiscated to government after appeal period is over.
Office to remit cash to the government under proper head by removing from Cr.CD deposit.
The interim order pertaining to release of mobile phones in favour of accused persons made absolute.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.