Bangalore District Court
And Along With His Staff Went To The Shop ... vs Wel Come Office Solution And Drawn ... on 7 July, 2022
1 CC NO.26105/2018
KABC030705502018
Presented on : 24-09-2018
Registered on : 24-09-2018
Decided on : 07-07-2022
Duration : 3 years, 9 months, 13 days
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 7th day of July 2022
Present : Sri.R.Mahesha,
B.A.L., LL.B.,
IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CC No.26105/2018
1.C.C.No. 26105/2018
2.Date of offence 09/02/2015
3.Complainant State by Wilson Garden Police
Station.
4.Accused 1. Bhojagami
S/o.Bhavangami
Aged about 23 years,
C/No.52/8, 12th Cross,
Wilson Garden, Bengaluru.
2 CC NO.26105/2018
2. Gijar Patel
S/o.Gela Patel
Aged about 23 years,
C/No.29, S R Nagar,
Bengaluru.
3. Ramesh Patel
S/o.Jivaraj Patel
Aged about 23 years,
C/No.484/4, 9th Cross,
Vivek Nagar,
Bengaluru.
4. Vasanth Dabriya @ Vasanth
Aged about 30 years,
R/No.33, Jogupalya,
Bengaluru.
5. Anil Dabriya @ Anil
S/o.Pachu Dabriya
Aged about 27 years,
C/No.113/8, Halsoor,
Bengaluru.
6. Murji Dabriya
S/o.Manji Dabriya
Aged about 35 years,
R/o.Jogupalua,
Bengaluru.
5. Offences U/Sec. 51, 63 of Copyright Act
complained of & Sec.102(A), 103, 104 of Trade
Marks Act & Sec.420 of IPC.
6.Plea Accused No.1 to 6 pleaded not
guilty.
3 CC NO.26105/2018
7.Final Order Accused No.1 to 6 are
acquitted.
8.Date of Order 07/07/2022.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Wilson Garden Police Station, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offences punishable u/Sec. 51, 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.102(A), 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 09/02/2015at about 12.30 pm in Wel Come office Solution situated at 12 th Cross, Wilson Garden, within the limits of Wilson Garden police station, the accused No.1 to 6 were found in possession and selling of duplicate Colin, Harpic and Elizol house cleaning liquid of CW.1 Sri.Rajeev Datha by branding 4 CC NO.26105/2018 them as an original Colin, Harpic and Elizol house cleaning liquid and violated the Copyright and Trademarks of Kangaroo Agency Private Limited complete IPR Solution and caused loss to CW.1 and cheated to the public and also CW.1. In this regard, CW.1 lodged complaint at Wilson Garden Police Station. Based on the same FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.27/2015 for the offences punishable u/Sec.51, 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.102(A), 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act and Sec.420 of IPC. Thereafter, CW.7 conducted raid along with panch witnesses and his staff in the above said shop and seized duplicate Colin, Harpic and Lizol of house cleaning items by drawing panchanama and also arrested the accused.
Thereafter, he completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offences punishable u/Sec. 51, 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.102(A), 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
3. During crime stage the accused No.1 to 6 have been arrested and produced before this court. Later accused No.1 5 CC NO.26105/2018 to 6 have been enlarged on bail. After filing of the charge sheet this Court has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec. 51, 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.102(A), 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act and Sec.420 of IPC and issued summons to the accused No.1 to 6. They have appeared before this Court through their counsel and accused No.1 to 6 obtained bail. The copy of the charge sheet has been furnished to the accused No.1 to 6 as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides the charge has been framed and read over to accused No.1 to 6. But they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case has been posted for prosecution evidence.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 2 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked 16 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. Thereafter, the statement of the accused No.1 to 6 u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. They have denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. They have not chosen to adduce their defence evidence. 6 CC NO.26105/2018
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the entire oral evidence and documents placed on record.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
(1)Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 09/02/2015 at about 12.30 pm in Wel Come office Solution situated within the limits of Wilson Garden police station, the accused No.1 to 6 were found in possession and selling of duplicate Colin, Harpic and Elizol house cleaning liquid of CW.1 Sri.Rajeev Datha by branding them as an original Colin, Harpic and Elizol house cleaning liquid and violated the Copyright and Trademarks of CW.1 and caused loss to him and cheated to public and also CW.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 51, 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.102(A), 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act and Sec.420 of IPC.?
(2) What order ?
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- The prosecution has alleged that on 09/02/2015at about 12.30 pm in Wel Come office Solution 7 CC NO.26105/2018 situated at 12th Cross, Wilson Garden, within the limits of Wilson Garden police station, the accused No.1 to 6 were found in possession and selling of duplicate Colin, Harpic and Elizol house cleaning liquid of CW.1 Sri.Rajeev Datha by branding them as an original Colin, Harpic and Elizol house cleaning liquid and violated the Copyright and Trademarks of Kangaroo Agency Private Limited complete IPR Solution and caused loss to CW.1 and cheated to the public and also CW.1. Therefore, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused No.1 to 6. As already stated supra, the prosecution has examined in all 2 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked 16 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16.
9. PW.1 Suneel Kumar Police Constable deposed in his evidence that on 9/2/2015 Investigating Officer got credible information that the accused persons were selling duplicate Colin, Lizol and Harpic of house cleaning liquid items to the public and Investigating Officer took him, complainant and CW.8 and CW.9 to the shop of accused and seized the same 8 CC NO.26105/2018 and drawn panchanama as per Ex.P.2. PW.1 being police officer accompanied with the PW.2 to assist for tracing out duplicate products like Colin, Harpic and Lizol and arresting persons who are involved in manufacturer of duplicate products. PW.1 and 2 deposed in a same manner regarding raid and recovery of duplicate products from the possession of the accused. During the course of cross-examination PW.1 clearly stated before this Court that on 9/2/2015 at about 10.30 am along six persons are leave Wilson Garden police station. Out of six, two higher police officers, two panchas and two police officers staff and complainant of this case, at the time of proceed to the place of incident they brought original products of the complainant complainant i.e. Lizol, Harpic and Colin. Further he deposed that he did not aware the products bought by complainant are original or duplicate. Further he deposed that they did not enquired who is the owner of Wilson Garden Wel Come Office. The said shop looks as a godown and office. They conducted panchanama till 12.30 pm in the spot. He did not remember the names of 9 CC NO.26105/2018 panchas who are present in Wilson Garden Wel Come Office. They did not sign on seized products. Further he deposed that they brought all the materials it is required for drawing mahazar in the spot. He clearly admitted during the course of cross-examination that the seized products are available in the open market. They did not receive any complaint against the accused for they selling duplicate products of complainant company and he denied other formal suggestions of the accused clearly and categorically denied by PW.1.
10. PW.2 Murthy is the Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence that on 9/2/2015 complainant came to Police Station and filed complaint against you accused persons. Further he has deposed in his evidence that himself, complainant and along with his staff went to the shop of accused Wel Come Office Solution and drawn panchanama and seizized duplicate Colin, Harpic, Lizol liquits and drawn panchanama and recorded the voluntary statements of the accused persons and recorded the statements of CW.6 to 10 CC NO.26105/2018 CW.10 and he handed over the case papers to CW.14 for further investigation. The PW.1 being partly Investigation Officer of this case he clearly and categorically stated in his chief-examination how he conducted raid and traced duplicate products and arrested persons who are involved in the business etc. He has been subjected cross-examination by accused at very length. During the course of cross- examination he clearly stated that before drawing panchanama he did not issue written notice to panchas. Further he admitted that the Wilson Garden road had good number of people, vehicles and it is a busy road. PW.2 being an Investigation Officer he did not enquired/investigate about who is the owner of Wel Come Office. He contended that the accused are the owner of Wel Come Office. But he did not collect any documentary proof to show before this Court that the accused are owners of Wel Come Office. He did not record any statements of neighbour shop owners. Further it is relevant to stated that PW.2 being the Investigation Officer he did not enquired about the owner of Jai Ambe shop. The 11 CC NO.26105/2018 accused No.2 denied that he was not the owner of Jai Ambe shop. Further PW.2 deposed during the course of cross- examination that at the instance of accused No.2 they went Kajari office, Ejipura near Viveknagar. The 3 rd accused is the owner of the said shop, but he did not collect any documents like rent agreement, licence, shop related documents from 3 rd accused Kajaria shop. Further PW.2 deposed during the course of cross-examination that the voluntary statement given by the accused No.1 to 3 they went to Sivam Distributor shop at Indiranagar and seized products, but Investigation Officer did not collect any documentary proof to show before this Court the accused No.1 to 6 are the owners of shops as deposed in his chief-examination and he denied other formal suggestions made by the accused. Therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to bring cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the accused No.1 to 6 have infringed the Copyright of Kangaroo Agency Private Limited complete IPR Solution. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused No.1 to 6 12 CC NO.26105/2018 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
11. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 6 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 51, 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.102(A), 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 6 stands cancelled.
Item No.1 to 3 shown in PF No.7/2015 shall be destroyed as worthless after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 7 th day of July 2022).
(R.Mahesha) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
13 CC NO.26105/2018ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW.1: Suneel Kumar PW.2 Murthy.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Panchanamas Ex.P.1&2(a): Signatures of PW.1 Ex.P.3 : Photos Ex.P.4 : Complaint Ex.P.4(a): Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.5 : FIR Ex.P.5(a): Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.6 to 12 : Documents Ex.P.13 : Panchanama Ex.P.13(a): Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.14 to 16: Voluntary Statements of accused.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
- NIL -
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
- NIL -
List of documents and materials marked on behalf of the defence:
- NIL -
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bengaluru.14 CC NO.26105/2018
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 6 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 51, 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.102(A), 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 6 stands cancelled.
Item No.1 to 3 shown in PF No.7/2015 shall be destroyed as worthless after the appeal period is over.
IX ACMM, Bengaluru.
15 CC NO.26105/2018