Delhi District Court
Charanjit Singh Chadha vs The State on 1 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI)SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal Number : 24/2015
Unique ID No. 02406R0279902015
1. Charanjit Singh Chadha
S/o Late Sh. Harbans Lal Chadha,
R/o BF-34, Tagore Garden,
New Delhi-110027
2. Kanwaljit Singh Chadha
S/o Late Sh Harbans Lal Chadha,
R/o BF-38, Tagore Garden
New Delhi-110027
.........................Appellant
versus
1. The State
..........................Respondent
Date of institution of Appeal : 01/09/2015
Date of Allocation : 02/09/2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 01/06/2016
Date of Judgment : 01/06/2016
Particulars related to impugned order
FIR No.. : 625/06
Poilce Station : Hauz Khas
Under Section : 108/104 TM Act
Date of impugned order : 10/08/2015 and 19.08.2015
Name of learned Trial Court : Dr Saurabh Kulshreshtha
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 1 of 10
Memo of Appearance
Sh Puneet Parhihar, Ld Counsel for Appellant.
Sh R.S. Negi , Ld Addl P.P for Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. The present is a judicial verdict on an appeal filed against the judgment, dated 10/08/2015, and order on sentence, dated 19.08.2015, passed by the Ld Trial Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely, Charanjit Singh Chadha and Kanwaljit Singh Chadha, against the order dated 10/08/2015 vide which appellants have been convicted u/s 103/104 r/w section 114 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and vide order dated 19/08/2015, both the appellant are sentenced to undergo SI for six months and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they are further sentenced to undergo SI for one month U/S 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and they are also sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months and fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine both the convicts are further sentenced to undergo SI for a period of one month for the offence U/s 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint case was filed for offences U/S 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, and Section 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, read with section 420 of the IPC by Lucas TVS Ltd against some unknown persons. Later on, pursuant to the order passed u/s 156(3) Cr.PC, an FIR was registered against the accused persons. The complaint was to the effect that complainant company is a leading Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 2 of 10 manufacturer/supplier of automotive components in India and its products are the most preferred automotive products which are practically used by all vehicle manufacturers in the Indian Auto Industry. The complainant company is the owner of Lucas TVS Ltd, which is trade mark registered. It is further case of the complainant that product manufactured in his company has been alloted a specified unique number by the company for the convenience and proper handling in the market and product is identifiable by the unique number, allotted to it by the company alongwith the name of the company. It is further alleged that the company's Research and Development section is responsible for developing various products manufactured and marketed by the complainant company. The mechanical/engineering drawings of the various products manufactured by the complainant company are prepared by the Research & Development Section which involves skill and effort and such drawings alongwith their 3-D depictions in the form of products qualify as original artistic work within the contemplation of section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
4 It has been further alleged by the complainant that few retailers/wholesale dealers at Kashmiri Gate are selling counterfeit products with the same unique specific numbers allotted by Lucas TVS to its products after making false representations to the effect that their goods/business are connected/associated with the goods/business of Lucas TVS Ltd, thereby causing financial losses and damage to the reputation and good will of the complainant company. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant's representatives have come across certain wholesalers/retailers near Kashmere Gate areas of Delhi who are engaged in the business of stocking, distributing and selling unauthorized illegal infringing,counterfeit, spurious products, including alternators, starters, blower motors, car fan assembly, wipers, ignition coils etc bearing identical and/or deceptively similar trade mark as Lucas TVS and other trade marks, including the logo label of Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 3 of 10 Lucas TVS Ltd in gross violation of the trade mark, proprietary rights and Copyright of the complainant in respect of above mentioned merchandise marketed in India as well as abroad.
5 It has been further alleged that Harson Motors Pvt Ltd has infringed the copyright vested in the complainant qua original artistic work comprising of drawings of various spare parts/products manufactured by complainant company and their three dimensional depictions in the form of spare parts and the original literary work comprising of unique specific number given to each product manufactured by the company, which amounts an offences punishable U/s 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act.
6 It has further been alleged that accused is also liable U/s 103 and 104 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 for the unauthorized and illegal use and false trade description of the complainant company's name i.e. " Lucas TVS'/ its representation of 'Lion" on the counterfeit products which amounts to passing off and hence liable U/s 103 and 104 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999. It has further been alleged that the accused has deceived his customers by using their counterfeit product, as if resembling or manufactured by Lucas TVS and, hence, accused deceived the customers by fraudulently inducing them to purchase counterfeit products and is liable for the offence U/s 420 of IPC.
7 After completion of investigation, police filed the chargesheet against the five accused persons i.e. Charanjit Singh Chadha, Kanwaljit Singh Chadha, Satinder Singh, Mrs Sumeet Kaur Chadha and Mrs Satnam Kaur Chadha. After hearing the arguments, Ld Trial Court had framed the charges against accused Satinder Singh U/S 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and U/s 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and also framed charges Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 4 of 10 against accused Charanjit Singh Chadha, Kanwaljit Singh Chadha, Sunit Kumar Chadha and Satnam Kaur Chadha U/S 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and U/s 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Thereafter, prosecution led its evidence and after conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused were recorded, where accused persons denied all the allegations levelled against them. Thereafter, after hearing final arguments, Ld Trial Court acquitted three accused persons, namely, Sunit Kumar Chaddha, Satnam Kaur Chaddha and Satender Singh U/s 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and convicted accused Charanjit Singh Chaddha and Kanwaljit Singh Chaddha for the offfences punishable U/s 103/104 r/w section 114 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and, accordingly sentenced both the convicts with SI for six months and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each U/s 103 of the Trade Marks Act and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, respectively, and in default of payment of fine, both the convicts were to further undergo SI for one month.
8. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order on sentence, both the appellants have preferred this appeal for setting aside the judgment dated 10.08.2015, and order on sentence, dated 19.08.2015.
9. Ld Counsel for appellants has contended that Ld Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants as to show their particular involvement in the offences. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had not applied the principles of natural justice and it is apparent from the fact that the depositions of the witnesses clearly shows that the entire case of prosecution has been based on the conjectures and surmises. It has further been contended that the Ld Trial Court did not consider the fact that the recovery is in total contravention of mandatory provisions of Section 115 of Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 5 of 10 the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had failed to appreciate that, in order to convict a person for any offence, it has to be proved without any reasonable doubt as to guilt of the accused and evade all possibilities as to his innocence. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2 HC Satbir Singh in its correct perspective and Ld Trial Court did not appreciate the contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses. It has further been contended that mere circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The chain of the circumstantial evidence has to be connected in such a way that it would not raise any doubt as to the innocence of the accused. It has further been contended benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused and, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of doubt, because of the non compliance of the mandatory provisions of the act, It has further been contended that material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and, while confiscating the goods, no expert opinion was sought. It has further been contended that appellants are persons of more than 60 years having no criminal antecedents and are persons of good repute in the society and they are running their business for more than 45 years at the same place and the impugned judgment is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.
10 On the other hand, Ld APP for state has contended that the Ld Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused persons after correctly weighing the prosecution evidence and material on record. It is further contended that convicts do not deserve any leniency and hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11 I have heard Ld Counsel for appellants, Ld APP for State and have given my thoughtful consideration to the same and have also gone Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 6 of 10 through the Trial Court record.
12 In the present matter, prosecution has examined nine witnesses in total. PW7, Sh Shanker Lal Pridwal, had deposed in his chief examination that he joined EIPR India Pvt Ltd in the year 2004 as investigating officer. He had also deposed that EIPR India Pvt Ltd is a private institution which deals in investigation regarding the duplicacy of the items in the market and in regard to the violation of any copy right or trade mark. He had identified complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC as Ex.PW7/A and identified his signatures at point A. He had further deposed that they had obtained search warrant of the court and, thereafter, they had gone to the shop of Harson Motors situated in Kashmiri Gate, where accused Charanjit Singh Chadha and Kamaljeet Singh Chaddha were found present there and they found some parts of TVS rectifier, point condensior, some empty wrappers and all the articles were of Luccas Indian Services and these articles were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/G. Thereafter, this witness was cross examined by Ld APP on some points, where he admitted all the facts put to him.
13 In the cross examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, witness was asked by Ld defence counsel that LUCAS TVS did not make any complaint to EIPR, to which this witness has stated that he is 10 th pass and he was working as Peon in EIPR and he did not know English language and he did not know the contents of the complaint U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. Ex.PW7/A and he did not the contents of the documents Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW2/H, Ex.PW2/G, Ex.PW7/B to Ex.PW7/H and he signed the said documents on the instructions of the IO at the PS and the contents of the said documents were not read over to him by the IO. He also stated that no senior officer from the EIPR was in the raiding party nor any public person was joined by the IO. He also stated that he could not deny or admit the Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 7 of 10 suggestion that he did not go to Kashmiri Gate along with raiding party on the relevant day. This witness did not identify the case property before the Court as the same, which were recovered from the possession of the accused persons.
14 In Kali Ram Vs State of H.P. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that :-
Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to this innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has, accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt."
15 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. AIR 2012, Supreme Court 37 has held that:-
"It is settled legal preposition that, while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions/improvements/embellishments etc had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the court to reject Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 8 of 10 the evidence in its entirety. The court after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses.
16 It is well settled through a catena of judicial pronouncements that, burden of Proof means the obligation of a party to prove his allegations during a trial. This phrase is employed to signify the duty of proving the facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause. In criminal cases, as every man is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, the burden of proof always lies on the party who takes the affirmative in pleading, unless a different provision is expressly made by statute. Thus, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by clear, convincing and unimpeachable evidence.
17 In the present matter, PW7 Sh Shankar Lal Paridwal is an important witness. He has deposed that the seal handing over memo was prepared by the IO, which is Ex.PW7/D and the same bears the signature at point A. These facts shows that the case property alleged to be recovered from the premises of the appellants, namely, Charanjit Chadha and Kanwaljit Singh Chadha was sealed by the IO. Case property, when produced in the Court was not having any legible seal. Further, as per PW7, the seals were broken. This witness has further stated that none of the property had any seal or impression of any seal. Thus, as per the evidence of PW7, the recovery of case property is doubtful, in the present case. Further there is no proper identification of the case property. Prosecution has failed to prove the alleged case property as well as its recovery from the possession of the accused persons, namely, Charanjit Singh Chadha and Kanwaljit Singh Chadha.
18 Since recovery is doubtful in the present case and seals were Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 9 of 10 also found broken the prosecution has failed to proved its case against the accused persons namely, Charanjit Singh Chadha and Kanwaljit Singh Chadha. Other accused persons, namely, Sunit Kaur Chadha, Satnam Kaur Chadha and Satender Singh, against whom charge was framed, were acquitted by the Trial Court.
19. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion, that appellants are entitled to get acquitted, in the present matter. Hence, the judgment and order on sentence as passed by Ld Trial Court are set aside. Both the appellants/accused are acquitted.
20 Present Appeal is, accordingly, allowed, with the above observations.
21 A copy of this judgment be sent to learned Trial Court along with the trial court record.
22 File related to Appeal be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Ramesh Kumar) On this 1st of June, 2016. ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) South Distt: Saket Courts: New Delhi Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 10 of 10 Charanjit Singh Chadha etc Vs State (NCT of Delhi) CA no. 24/15 Page 11 of 10