Bangalore District Court
Verified The Toners And Cartridge And ... vs Counsel That It Is Elicited That S P Road ... on 3 January, 2023
1
KABC030108982020
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 3rd day of January 2023
Present : Sri.R.Mahesha.
BAL.LLB.,
IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CC No.2955/2020
1.C.C.No. 2955/2020
2.Date of offence 28/03/2019
3.Complainant State by S J Park Police
Station.
4.Accused 1. Anaveer S/o.Basavaraj
Aged about 28 years,
R/No.136, X Cross, Kengeri,
Bengaluru.
2. Manjunatha
S/o.Thamanna Gowda
Aged about 34 years,
R/No.501/9, 6th Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru.
2
3. Govindaraju
No.D-429, 10th Main road,
2nd Stage, Peenya,
Bengaluru.
5. Offences U/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act and
complained of Sec.420, 511 r/w Sec.34 of
IPC.
6.Plea Accused No.1 to 3 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused No.1 to 3 are
acquitted.
8.Date of Order 03/01/2023.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of S J Park Police Station, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable u/Sec.63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 511 r/w Sec.511 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.03.2019 at 3 about 12.00 pm the accused persons found in possession and selling of duplicate toners and cartridge of HP Company and Samsung Company of CW.1 situated at S P Road, in front of Sri.Rajarajeshwari temple footpath, Bengaluru, without obtaining any licence or permission from CW.1 and thereby violated the copyright of the company and also cheated to the public and also CW.1 . In this regard, CW.1 lodged first information statement and based on the same FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.17/2019 for the offences punishable u/Sec.63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 511 r/w Sec.511 of IPC.
Thereafter, CW.1 along with CW.2 to CW.7 rushed to the spot and conducted raid and seized the alleged duplicate toners by drawing panchanama. Thereafter, PI completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 511 r/w Sec.511 of IPC.
3. After filing of the charge sheet this Court has taken 4 the cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 511 r/w Sec.511 of IPC and issued summons to the accused persons. They have appeared before this Court through their counsel and obtained bail. The copy of the charge sheet has been furnished to the accused 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 3. 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 4 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and 9 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and MO.1 to MO.9. Thereafter, the statement of the accused persons 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.
5
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 28.03.2019 at about 12.00 pm the accused persons found in possession and selling of duplicate toners and cartridge of HP Company and Samsung Company of CW.1 situated at S P Road, in front of Sri.Rajarajeshwari temple footpath, Bengaluru, without obtaining any licence or permission from CW.1 and thereby violated the copyright of the company and also cheated to the public and also CW.1 and thereby committed an offences punishable under Sec.63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 511 r/w Sec.511 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 28.03.2019 at about 12.00 pm the accused persons found in possession and selling of duplicate toners and cartridge of HP Company and Samsung Company of CW.1 situated at 6 S P Road, in front of Sri.Rajarajeshwari temple footpath, Bengaluru, without obtaining any licence or permission from CW.1 and thereby violated the copyright of the company and also cheated to the public and also CW.1. Therefore, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused. As already stated supra, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and MO.1 to MO.9.
9. The prosecution has been examined CW.1 as PW.1 - Kusmith Singh complainant has deposed that on 28/03/2019 when he was going to market near footpath at that time he saw that somebody was selling duplicate toners and cartridge of HP Company and Samsung company without obtaining any licence from the company. He further deposed that he filed complaint as per Ex.P.1 against the accused persons and police came to the spot and drawn panchanama as per Ex.P.2 and seized MO.1 to MO.9 from the spot and photos and documents are marked 7 as per Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined him. In his cross-examination it is elicited that he did not remember the police officers name and he did not read and write of Kannada language and he signed on Ex.P.2 at Police Station. Further in the cross- examination he clearly admitted that he get typed Ex.P.1 at police station at about 12.30 pm. He stayed in the police station more than 20-25 minutes. He did not have any special identification on MO.1. Further he has denied the bare suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for accused.
10. The prosecution has been examined CW.5 as PW.2. He deposed before this Court that on 28/03/2019 at about 12.00 pm as per the instructions of CW.8 himself, CW.1, CW.6 CW.7 they went to S P Road, Sri.Rajarajeshwari temple footpath and found that the accused persons were selling duplicate toners and cartridge of HP Company and Samsung company without obtaining any licence from the 8 company and CW.8 seized the same and drawn panchanama as per Ex.P.2. He has been subjected cross- examined by the accused counsel. During the course of cross-examination by accused counsel that it is elicited that no articles were seized on that day and he denied the other suggestion made by accused counsel.
11. The prosecution has been examined CW.6 as PW.3. He deposed before this Court that on 9/4/2019 as per the instructions of CW.7 he searched the accused No.3 and not found in the address and enquired about him of his neighbourers and he gave report as per Ex.P.7. He has been subjected cross-examination by the accused counsel. During the course of cross-examination by accused counsel that it is elicited that CW.7 not gave any written and he denied the other suggestion made by accused counsel.
12. The prosecution has been examined CW.7 as PW.4. He deposed before this Court that on 28/03/2019 when he 9 was on station duty at that time complainant came to Police Station and filed written complaint against the accused persons and on the basis of it he registered a case against the accused persons and they went to spot and complainant verified the toners and cartridge and drawn panchanama and seized the same and obtained documents from the complainant and recorded the statements of witnesses. During the course of cross-examination by accused counsel that it is elicited that S P road is very busy area and no panchas were signed on panchanama. Further it is elicited from the mouth of PW.4 that the CW.1 came at about 11.30 am and he stayed in the police station one hour and he get 15 minutes time for receiving FIS and preparing FIR. He himself called panchas and they came within ½ an hour from he called. The said SP road had a distance from S J Park police station ½ KM, its take time to reach the said alleged place of incident 10-15 minutes. The panchas stayed only 5-10 minutes with police officer, then they went after sign on panchanama. Further he admitted 10 that MO.1 to MO.9 properties are available in the all markets at Bengaluru and he did not had any special identification on MO.1 to 9 and he did not took signatures on MO.1 to MO.9 by panchas and he himself signed on MO.1 to MO.9 and he and he denied the other suggestion made by accused counsel.
13. It is relevant to note that the prosecution has been cited CW.1 to CW.8, out of which the prosecution has able to examined CW.1, CW.5 to CW.7 as PW.1 to PW.4, other prosecution witnesses i.e. CW.2 to CW.4 and CW.8 presence could not be secured in spite of issued process of summons, warrant through local police officers and higher police officers. Therefore, they are dropped out for non- securing them well in time. It is relevant to note that Ex.P.1 gave by CW.1 at about 12.00 noon on 28/3/2019. But Investigation Officer stated before this Court that CW.1 came to police station on 28/3/2019 at about 11.30 am. To the contrary, CW.1 stated in the cross-examination he get typed Ex.P.1 in police station at about 12.30 pm. It is 11 contrary, to Ex.P.1 and FIR contents. Further it is relevant to note that the prosecution has unable to secured the presence of panch witnesses i.e. Cw.2 and 3 non- examination of panch witnesses and partial Investigation Officer of this case i.e. Cw.8 is also fatal to the case of prosecution. It is mandated by law any panchanama drawn by police officers it should signed by two panchas and the panch witnesses have appeared and reiterated panchanama averments before this Court and they identified properties which are seized by police officer. In the instant case, the panchas are not at all stepped into witness box. Though CW.7 deposed he drawn panchanama and seized MO.1 to 9 in the presence of CW.2 and 3 in the absence of Cw.2 and 3 evidence. The evidence of police officers cannot be believed. Therefore, it is also fatal to the case of prosecution. There is a inconsistence evidence by CW.1 and Cw.7 regarding actual time of lodging of FIS. So its creates serious doubt regarding the case of prosecution. Therefore, there is no supporting evidence from the 12 evidence of PW.1 to PW.4. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
14. 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 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.The bail bonds executed by accused No.1 to 3
shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically.
Mo.1 to MO.9 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 3rd day of January 2023).
(R.Mahesha) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.13
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW.1: Kusmith Singh PW.2: Santosh Arjun Rathod PW.3: Somappa Lamani PW.4: Santosh P G.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Panchanama Ex.P.3&4: Photos Ex.P.5 : Documents Ex.P.6& 7: CD & Report Ex.P.8 : FIR Ex.P.9 : Notice.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 to 9 : Toners & cartridges.
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
03/01/2023 Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No. 1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420, 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.The bail bonds executed by accused No.1 to 3
shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically. Mo.1 to MO.9 shall be destroyed as worthless after the appeal period is over.
IX ACMM, Bengaluru.