Delhi District Court
State vs Yeshpal on 2 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NUPUR GUPTA :
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE 02-000401-2014
State Vs. Yashpal & Anr.
FIR No. : 300/2012
U/s : 63 Copyright Act and 420 IPC.
Police Station: Kotla Mubarakpur / DIU
CT CASES : 612842/2016
Date of institution of case : 31.01.2014.
Date of reserving of judgment : 02.08.2025.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.09.2025.
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the Case : 612842/2016
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 11.12.2012
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Bhupinder Singh Bindra
Authorized Representative of
Hawkins Cookers.
India.
4. Name, parentage & address of accused :
Yashpal S/o Sh. Tek Chand, R/o 22/2, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
Puneet Malhotra S/o Late Sh. Madan
Mohan Malhotra, R/o GP-68, Maurya Digitally
signed by
Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. NUPUR
NUPUR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02
16:42:01
+0530
FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 1 of 27
5. Offence complained of or proved : U/s 63 Copyright Act.
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Both accused persons
acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Introduction:
1. On 23.11.2012 a complaint was lodged by Sh. Bhupender Singh, the Authorized Representative (hereinafter referred to as 'AR') of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. regarding Copyright Violations. Upon receipt of information, a Raiding Team was formed and raid was conducted at Shop No. 22/23, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi, as well as at Shop no. 99/1, Crockery market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
2. In pursuance of the Raid, 236 Rubber Gaskets and 253 Holograms from the possession of accused Yashpal and 120 pieces of rubber gaskets and 119 holograms were recovered from the shop belonging to accused Madan Mohan Malhotra (since Deceased) and Puneet Malhotra, which were found to be counterfeit.
Digitally
signed by
NUPUR
NUPUR GUPTA
Prosecution's Case : GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02
16:42:30
+0530
FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 2 of 27
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.11.2012 a complaint was given by Sh. Bhupinder Singh, AR on behalf of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. regarding the copyright infringement of the rubber gaskets and holograms belonging to Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Upon receipt of this information, present FIR which is Ex. PW5/2, was registered for commission of offences of Copyright Act 1957 (Amendment Acts 1984 & 1994) and u/s 420 IPC. A raiding party comprising a number of police officials, and complainant Bhupinder Singh was constituted. At around 12:10 pm, a raid was conducted at Shop no. 22/23, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarakpur New Delhi where a person namely Yashpal was found. From the said shop 236 pieces of rubber gaskets and 253 holograms were recovered. Thereafter, on disclosure statement of accused Yashpal that he brings the rubber gaskets from a shop located at Sadar Bazar, a raid was conducted at Shop no. 99/1, Crockery Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi from where 120 pieces of rubber gasket and 119 holograms were recovered. The said shop was being run by accused Madan Mohan Malhotra (since deceased) and his son Puneet Malhotra. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Yashpal, Madan Mohan Malhotra and Puneet Malhotra for Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:42:42 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 3 of 27 offence u/s 63/64 of the Copyright Act and section 420 IPC.
4. All accused persons were summoned. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to them. Subsequently, vide Order dated 30.05.2018, charge was framed against all the accused persons by Ld. Predecessor Court for the offence u/s Section 63 of the Copy Right Act. All accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then listed for recording of Prosecution's Evidence. To prove its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses.
5. Sh. Sushil Jain was examined by the prosecution as PW1. He deposed that he is running a shop in the name and style of Brij Kishore & sons "at shop no. 4522/24 at Pahari Deeraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He is authorized dealer of Hawkins Pressure Cooker and its accessories. In the present case in the year 2012, one day police came to his shop and enquired him regarding three bills of his shop by which he had sold a spare parts of Futura Pressure Cooker and gasket of Hawkins Pressure Cooker to the Firm M/s. Madan Mohan Light House. He told the police that through the said bills he sold original items to M/s. Madan Mohan Light House. Police had not showed him any gasket allegedly recovered from the shop of Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:42:57 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 4 of 27 +0530 Puneet Malhotra, S/o Madan Malhotra. The witness turned hostiled and he was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
6. Ct. Vijay was examined by the prosecution as PW2. He deposed that on 11.12.2012, he was posted as constable at DIU, South District, New Delhi. On that day, he joined investigation of present case with IO SI D.V. Singh. During investigation, he along with IO and other staff namely Ct. Bijender and complainants reached at Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, at shop no. 22/23 where they met shop owner namely, accused Yashpal. At the instance of the complainants, search was conducted in the said shop and 236 gasket of Hawkins were recovered which were found to be counterfeit after examination by the complainant. Besides aforesaid gaskets, 253 holograms on which word "Original" was inscribed, were also seized from the said shop. As owner of the shop accused Yashpal could not produce any satisfactory document/reply of possession of said articles, they were seized by the IO after separating one gasket as sample and remaining articles were kept in three plastic jars and all the case property was sealed with the seal NUPUR of DS Ex.PW2/A. IO prepared rukka and got FIR registered GUPTA Digitally signed by NUPUR GUPTA Date: 2025.09.02 through him. He took rukka to PS K.M. Pur and got FIR registered 16:43:31 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 5 of 27 and handed over the same to the IO. IO also arrested and conducted personal search of accused Yashpal and recorded his disclosure statement vide memos Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D. Thereafter, accused Yashpal led them to shop no. 99/1, Sadar Bazar, Delhi where at the instance of complainant, 120 pieces of counterfeit rubber gasket and 119 counterfeit holograms were recovered. IO separated one gasket as sample and seized the case property after duly sealed with the seal of DS vide memo Ex.PW2/E. During proceedings at aforementioned shop at Sadar Bazar, a large crowd gathered and in the said crowd owner/persons managing the above said shop fled and did not meet them. Thereafter, they returned with the case property and accused Yashpal. Later on IO recorded his statement to the above said effect. He had correctly identified the accused and five plastic jars containing particulars of present case and all duly sealed with the seal of court i.e. "MK". The three plastic boxes have been found containing total 235 counterfeit Hawkins rubber gasket and 253 holograms on which word original has been inscribed. The same NUPUR are correctly identified by him as recovered from shop No. 22/23 GUPTA Digitally signed by NUPUR GUPTA Date: 2025.09.02 Sukhdev Market, KM Pur, Delhi. The case property is 16:43:46 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 6 of 27 Ex.P-1(Colly.) The two plastic jars have been found containing total 119 counterfeit Hawkins rubber gasket and 119 counterfeit holograms on which word original has been inscribed. The same are correctly identified as recovered from shop no. 99/1, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The case property is Ex.P-2(Colly.) One counterfeit gasket placed on record was also correctly identified as recovered from shop no. 22/23, Sukhdev Market, KM Pur, Delhi. The case property is Ex.P-3. One counterfeit gasket as recovered from shop no. 99/1, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, i.e., Ex.P-4, was also correctly identified by the witness.
7. ASI Suresh was examined as PW3. He deposed that on 28.09.2013, he was posted as HC in DIU, Malviya Nagar, South District, New Delhi. On that day, he signed on the arrest memo of accused Madan Mohan Malhotra which is Ex. PW3/4.
8. Sh. Ashish Jain was examined as PW4. He deposed that he is running the shop of utensils and pressure cooker since 2005, being authorized representative of Service Centre and Mega Whole Seller Digitally signed by of Hawkins Pressure Cooker in the name of Anil Marketing which NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:44:00 +0530 is situated in the Deputy Ganj Sadar Bazar, Delhi-6. On 21.12.2012 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 7 of 27 police official along with company official came in his shop and told him that some spurious parts of spare parts had been found and seized at a shop situated in the Kotla Mubarak Pur. Thereafter it is also informed by the police official that they have conducted the raid at the shop of Madan Malhotra Light House which is situated at Sadar Bazar. They had said that they had purchased the spare parts from the shop of Anil Marketing. But actual parts which was recovered by the police official from Madan Malhotra Light House were spurious. He had given the original parts of the Hawkins as a specimen to the police official. The parts which were recovered from the shop of Madan Malhotra were shown to him were spurious rubber gasket. He had never sold the rubber gasket in question to the Madan Malhotra Light House. He had also shown the IO the bill book with number and date pertaining to the gasket parts which were sold to the Madan Malhotra vide bill no.7804 dated 06.11.2012 and bill no. 7840 dated 17.11.2012. He had told to the IO at the time of his statement that said bills were genuine. The rubber gasket which he had given to the IO as a simple being NUPUR the genuine gasket of the Hawkins Cooker are in judicial file and GUPTA Digitally signed by NUPUR GUPTA the same has been correctly identified by him as Ex. P1 and P2 Date: 2025.09.02 16:44:12 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 8 of 27 (colly). He had also shown the bill book with number and date pertaining to the gasket parts which were sold to Madan Malhotra Light House vide bill no. 7075 dated 11.04.2012, 7451 dated 08.08.2012, 7596 and 7597 dated 22.09.2012 to the IO. The said bills were genuine which were issued against the gasket parts of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. He had also brought the ledger statement of account of the financial year 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 in which the aforesaid bill numbers were reflected. The same is marked as Mark PW4/P1. IO had shown one rubber gasket to him and asked whether the said gasket has been sold by him to Madan Malhotra Light House or not. He saw the same and, thereafter, he informed the IO that it has never been sold by him to Madan Malhotra Light House (Yashpal, Puneet and Madan) as they were the original Hawkins Service Center of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. and the recovered gasket parts were the spurious parts. IO recorded his statement to this effect.
9. Insp. D.V. Singh was examined by the prosecution as PW5.
On 27.11.2012, he was posted as a Sub-Inspector in DIU at PS Digitally Malviya Nagar. On that day, a complaint written by Sh. Bhupender signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 Singh, AR of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. was marked to him by the then 16:44:25 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 9 of 27 ACP/DIU South District. Thereafter, he had conducted the inquiry qua the complaint and collected the document i.e. copies of authorization letter, trademark certificate, copyright certificate and power of attorney etc. The same are Ex PW5/A(colly)(running from page no. 15 to page no. 42). Thereafter, he analyzed the documents submitted by the complainant. He then constituted a raiding party which included Constable Bijender, Constable Vijay and AR Sh. Bhupender. On 11.12.2012, vide departure DD No. 15 dated 11.12.2012, the same is Ex.PW5/1 and the content of the same which was encircled is in his handwriting and marked as A. Thereafter, they went to Kotla Mubarakpur and at the instance of AR of the company. When they reached near shop no. 22/23, Sukhdev Market,Kotla Mubarakpur, he requested some public persons to join the raiding party. However, they denied to join the raiding party stating their personal difficulty. They also did not disclose their personal details. Thereafter, at the instance of the complainant, they went to the shop no. 22/23, Sukhdev Vihar and found that a person namely Yashpal was running the said shop.
Digitally signed by Thereafter, he intimated him about the allegation leveled by the NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:44:35 +0530 complainant against him. However, accused Yashpal refused to FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 10 of 27 admit the said allegation. After that, accused shop was searched in presence of the complainant, accused and other members of the raiding party. On the search of the shop, some incriminating material was found with respect to the allegation of the complainant. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex.PW5/2. Thereafter, he handed over the same to Constable Vijay to get the FIR registered at the PS Kotla Mubarakpur. After registration of the FIR, Ct. Vijay returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him as the investigation of the case was marked to him. During the search of the shop, descriptive material i.e. 236 counterfeit gasket of Hawkins company and 253 duplicate holograms of the said company with the word "Original" were recovered from the said shop. Thereafter, he had taken one gasket and one hologram as samples from the recovered counterfeit items and the pullanda of the remaining recovered items was prepared after putting them in 3 separate plastic jars and sealed the same with the seal of 'DS'. He then seized the pullandas and the case property along with sample vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He had NUPUR also prepared the site plan at the spot, which is Ex.PW5/3. GUPTA Digitally signed by NUPUR GUPTA Date: 2025.09.02 Thereafter, he arrested the accused and conducted his personal 16:45:17 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 11 of 27 search vide memos already Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively. Thereafter, he recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW2/D. He had also recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW5/4. During the course of inquiry made from the accused, accused disclosed that he used to purchase the counterfeit items from Shop No. 99/1, Sadar Bazaar from one person namely Madan Malhotra and his son Punit Malhotra. Thereafter, they along with accused went to the said shop and he requested some public persons to join the raiding team. However, they denied to join the raiding party stating their personal difficulty. They also did not disclose their personal details. Thereafter, at the instance of the accused, they went to the said shop and found one person namely Madan Malhotra running the said shop. In the meantime, nearby shop owners gathered at the said spot and created ruckus. During the ruckus, Madan Malhotra saw an opportunity and sneaked from the said shop. Thereafter, they searched the shop in the presence of accused Yashpal and the complainant and upon conducting the search, they found 120 Digitally Counterfeit gaskets of Hawkins Company and 119 duplicate NUPUR signed by NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:45:32 holograms of said company. He then took one sample from both the +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 12 of 27 recovered items and thereafter, he prepared the pullanda of remaining gaskets and holograms after putting them in plastic jars. He sealed the pullanda of the said jars with the seal of 'DS'. Thereafter, he prepared the seizure memo of the said case property vide memo Ex. PW2/E. He then prepared the site plan of the said spot vide Ex.PW5/5. He also took the photographs of the said shop having the name and mobile number mentioned on the flex board of the shop and placed the same on record. He had also pasted the notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. upon the said shop and he had also taken the photograph of the said notice after affixing the same on the shop. Photographs are Ex.PW5/B(colly). Thereafter, they returned to the PS along with case property and accused person and he deposited the case properties in the Malkhana of the PS Kotla Mubarakpur. He then recorded the statement of the members of the raiding party as well as of the complainant to the abovesaid effect. Upon verification of the bills produced by accused Madan Mohan Malhotra it was found that the recovered items from the abovesaid shops have not been sold to the accused persons from the said shop belonging to Ashish Jain and Sushil Jain. In this regard, the Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 statements of Ashish Jain and Sushil Jain were recorded u/s 161 16:45:46 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 13 of 27 Cr.P.C. Both the persons denied that they have never sold the said recovered item at any point of time to the accused Yashpal and Madan Malhotra or his son Punit Malhotra. During the course of investigation, he collected the reply from the association of the shop owners of Sadar Bazaar and it was mentioned in the reply that shop no. 99/1 where raid was conducted and recovery was effected belongs to Madan Malhotra and his son Punit Malhotra. The reply of the same is Ex.PW5/6. The accused Madan Malhotra has also submitted rent receipt and bill of the MTNL showing that he had taken the said shop on rent. The copies of the rent receipt and the copy of MTNL bill are Ex.PW5/7(colly). Accused Madan Mohan Malhotra was then accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A. Arrest memo of accused Punit Malhotra is Ex.PW5/8. During the course of investigation, he got recovered case property inspected by the concerned Court. Thereafter, he sent the aforesaid recovered case property to the office of Hawkins Company to verify the items with the specifications by way of forwarding letter, the same is Ex.PW5/10 (colly). He had received the reply of the Hawkins Digitally Cookers Limited Company with respect to the verification of the NUPUR signed by NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:46:01 said items. The reply along with supporting statement are +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 14 of 27 Ex.PW5/11 (colly). As per the reply of the Hawkins Company, the recovered items were counterfeit and not made by them. They have also submitted the certificate of the copy right certificate along with the true copy of holograms of Hawkins Company. Certified copy of fresh certificate of incorporation consequent on the change of name of the company was also submitted by the company along with the reply. The same are Ex.PW5/12(colly). Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted the same before the Court. Accused Yashpal and Punit Malhotra were correctly identified by him.
10. Sh. Parveen Kumar Anand was examined as PW6. He has been working as President of United Traders Association of Sadar Bazar, Delhi since the year 2011. The office of the association is at 120 Crockery Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He do not know if the shop No. 99/1, Crockery Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi belongs to Puneet Malhotra and Madan Mohan Malhotra. He had not given any intimation to police regarding the effect that abovesaid shop Digitally belongs to Puneet Malhotra and Madan Mohan Malhotra. He had NUPUR signed by NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:46:20 not issued any letter on behalf of association as president to the +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 15 of 27 police regarding the ownership of the said shops.
11. Sh. Murli Tekchandani was examined as PW7. He deposed that at the relevant time, he was working in Hawkins Cookers Ltd.
as an Executive Director, (Finance and Administration) and on 24.07.2012, he met Mr. Bhupinder Singh and thereafter he trained him and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Verma with respect to Identification of Genuine and Spurious parts of Hawkins Pressure Cooker including Gaskets, Safety Valves etc. After giving them training, he gave them a certificate of training on 20th November, 2012. The certified copy of the certificate is Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter, he also gave the Power of Attorney to Mr. Bhupinder Singh to conduct surveys in Market and if any spurious parts of the pressure cookers are found to report the same to the concerned Police authority, organize raids on such dealers and all follow up actions including filing of complaint on behalf of Hawkins Pressure Cooker Ltd. The notarized copy of Power of Attorney is Ex. PW7/A (colly). Thereafter, a Raid was organized by Delhi Police on the basis of the complaint made by Mr. Bhupinder to the concerned DCP, who Digitally in turn directed to the concerned officers to take actions as NUPUR signed by NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:46:38 appropriate. Thereafter, he learnt that a raid has been conducted on +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 16 of 27 11.12.2012 in Yashpal Crockery Store located in Kotla Mubarakpur where spurious Gaskets and spurious Holograms were found.
Another raid was conducted on the same day at Malhotra Light House, Sadar Bazar where also spurious Gaskets spurious Holograms were found. After that, he received a notice from ACP in April, 2013 asking him to check Gaskets in three sealed packs and to give the finding with the certificate whether these are genuine or spurious Gaskets. He replied to the ACP in July, 2013 and gave three statements showing that what a genuine Hawkins Gaskets has by way of specifications and that the other Gaskets received were genuine or not. In the said report he explained the features of Gaskets which are genuine and how the spurious Gaskets are not having these specifications. He drew attention to the fact that the Hawkins Gaskets have a Hologram which shows pictures of the word Hawkins and picture of a Hawkins Pressure Cooker. The statements are Ex. PW7/B (colly) and his reply is Ex. PW5/11(colly).
12. All prosecution witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld Defense Counsel. Prosecution evidence was closed and matter was Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
then listed for examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. It is also 2025.09.02 16:46:54 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 17 of 27 relevant here to mention that during the trial, accused Madan Mohan Malhotra had expired and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 03.03.2020.
13. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused Yespal and Puneet Malhotra and their statements were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 31.05.2025. Both accused persons denied the prosecution case in its entirety and claimed innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Despite opportunity, no independent evidence was led by the accused in his defence.
14. Details arguments have been heard from Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. Record perused carefully. Relevant Law:-
The settled propositions of criminal are :
(A) Prosecution is required to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA evidence. GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:47:07 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 18 of 27 (B) In order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused.
(C) The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused.
(D) The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
Law relating to requirement of independent witness
15. Sections 100 Clause 4 & 5 Cr.P.C: Requirement of independent witnesses only when search is made on the person of the accused or at some place from where the incriminating articles is recovered and not when corroboration of happening of event in which accused is alleged to be involved is concerned. Minor contradictions do not effect the credibility of the prosecution NUPUR case. GUPTA Digitally signed by NUPUR GUPTA Date: 2025.09.02 16:47:21 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 19 of 27
16. It was held in the judgment titled as Ravi Kapoor V. State of Rajasthan, 2012 VIII AD (S.C) 73 that "Minor variations are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses when their statements are recorded after a considerable lapse from the date of occurrence".
Overall context of the case is to be seen.
17. It also the settled law laid down in Sardul Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2002 SC 3462 that Courts have a duty to undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all the vital features of the case and entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Law relating to Evidentary value of testimony of Police Officers:
18. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police 16:47:33 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 20 of 27 personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds; Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311. Section 63 Copyright Act provides as Under :-
"Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act.--Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of--
(a) the copyright in a work, or
(b) any other right conferred by this Act, 1[except the right conferred by section 53A] 1[except the right conferred by section 53A]" 2[shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that 3[where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business] the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.
Section 103 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides as Under:-
Penalty for applying false trade marks, trade descriptions, etc.
--Any person who--
(a) falsifies any trade mark; or
(b) falsely applies to goods or services any trade mark; or
(c) makes, disposes of, or has in his possession, any die, block, machine, plate or other instrument for the purpose Digitally signed by NUPUR of falsifying or of being used for falsifying, a trade mark; NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
or 2025.09.02
16:47:47
+0530
FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 21 of 27
(d) applies any false trade description to goods or services; or
(e) applies to any goods to which an indication of the country or place in which they were made or produced or the name and address of the manufacturer or person for whom the goods are manufactured is required to be applied under section 139, a false indication of such country, place, name or address; or
(f) tampers with, alters or effaces an indication of origin which has been applied to any goods to which it is required to be applied under section 139; or
(g) causes any of the things above-mentioned in this section to be done, shall, unless he proves that he acted, without intent to defraud, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.
Discussion on merits :
The primary question to be determined is whether the case property was recovered from the possession of the accused Yashpal and Puneet Malhotra from the alleged shops and whether the recovered gaskets and holograms were counterfiet. Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:48:03 +0530
19. The case of the prosecution is that in pursuance of complaint FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 22 of 27 filed by complainant Bhupinder Singh, a raiding Party consisting of the IO/Insp. DV Singh, Ct. Vijay, Ct. Vijender & Complainant was formed on 11.12.2012 on the verbal direction of the Senior Officials.
20. A raid was conducted at Shop no. 22/23, Sukhdev Market, Kotlamubarkpur, New Delhi and Shop no. 99/1, Sadar Bazar Delhi. As per the Police officials, few public persons were asked to join the investigation by the IO but they refused without disclosing their names and addresses. The shops where the raid was allegedly conducted is situated in a building which was occupied. The locality is also densely populated. From the statement of witnesses, it has come on record that several persons were gathered at the spot when raid was taking place. Despite presence of public persons at the spot, IO did not make any independent person as a witness of the raid. Law is well settled that sincere effort should be made to join the public witness. In these circumstances, the recovery itself become doubtful.
21. Apart from the recovery of the case property, the prosecution Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
has also failed to prove that the recovered gaskets and holograms 2025.09.02 16:48:28 +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 23 of 27 which were seized were counterfeit as alleged. IO stated that Expert Sh. Bhupinder Singh had verified the recovered gaskets and holograms and informed that they were pirated. Apart from Sh. Bhupinder Singh no one else checked the recovered gaskets and holograms. All the witnesses relied upon the wisdom of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. None of the other Prosecution witness was an expert or had himself examined any of the allegedly recovered articles. Thus, they could not have opined as to the genuineness or otherwise of either gasket or the hologram. The testimonies of all other witnesses is based on what they have heard from Sh. Bhupinder Singh and is thus, merely hearsay in nature which is not admissible to this extent. It is only Sh. Bhupinder Singh whose opinion formed the foundation of entire case of prosecution as he only informed everyone else that the recovered gaskets and holograms checked by him all were counterfeit. However, it is important to note here that prosecution has failed to examine PW Bhupinder Singh, who is star witness of the case of the prosecution. Despite several opportunities, he did not appeared before the Court Digitally signed by NUPUR and thus vide order dated 10.10.2022, he was dropped from the list NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:48:42 +0530 of witnesses . Thus, the reason on the basis of which the alleged the FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 24 of 27 recovered material was opined as counterfeit, could not be substantiated. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the seized material was counterfeit.
22. The case is primarily based on the finding of alleged expert who examined the recovered gaskets and holograms at the spot and found them to be counterfeit. No part of case property was sent for examination by any Expert. When the case property was produced at the time of evidence before the Court, the original gaskets and holograms were not produced at the same time. The alleged expert Sh. Bhupinder Singh did not appeared before the Court and thus, on what grounds he has formed the opinion that the recovered material were counterfeit and not the original is unknown. No independent expert was examined in the case. All the other witnesses have relied on the wisdom of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, whose testimony could not be recorded before the Court at any point of time. In view of the above discussion, it would not be safe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW-7 Murli Tek Chandani, who has given authority letter to Sh. Bhupinder Singh as he was not Digitally present at the spot when raid was conducted at the shops of the signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:48:57 accused persons. There is no FSL report on record. No other expert +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 25 of 27 was examined by the prosecution to prove that the material allegedly recovered from the accused persons were counterfeit. In the opinion of this Court, the above facts hits at the very root of the prosecution's case and demolishes it entirely. It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. In the present case, Prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of section U/s 63 Copyright Act. There are several other Digitally signed by loopholes in the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses which hit NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:49:11 the very roots of the prosecutions case. When the main pillars of +0530 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 26 of 27 the case of prosecution have fallen, it would be futile to look to the pillars which stand and try and ascertain whether the structure can be salvaged. Prosecution has further failed to show any proximity or chain of events to establish the fact that accused was present at the spot as alleged or that the gaskets and holograms allegedly recovered from the spot were pirated to bring home the offence punishable Under Section 63 Copyright Act against accused persons. On the basis of discrepancies and the contradictions as pointed out earlier, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused persons. Accused Yashpal and Puneet Malhotra are acquitted for the offence Under Section 63 Copyright Act. Ordered Accordingly. Announced in the open Court on 02.09.2025.
Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.02 16:49:26 +0530 (Dr. Nupur Gupta) Chief Judicial Magistrate South East District/02.09.2025 FIR No: 300/2012 State Vs. Yashpal Page No. 27 of 27