Bangalore District Court
State By Halasurgate vs Pleaded Not Guilty And Claimed To Be ... on 4 January, 2020
1 CC NO.7816/18
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2020
Present : Sri.Prakash Channappa Kurubett,
B.Sc., LL.B.(Spl).,
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 7816/2018
2.Date of 13/04/2017
offence
3.Complainant State by Halasurgate
Police Station.
4.Accused Prabhu Ram
S/o.Moodaram,
Aged about 22 years,
R/o. No.4/1, Akkipete
Main, 3rd Floor,
Bengaluru.
5. Offences U/Sec.51(B) 63 Copy Right
complained of Act.
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 04/01/2020.
2 CC NO.7816/18
REASONS
The Police Inspector of Halsurgate Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for
the offences punishable U/Sec.51(B) and 63 Copy Right Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on
13/04/2017 at 5.20 p.m. Bengaluru City, Halsuru Gate
Police station, SP Road, 3/1, 3 rd Floor, Shop No.302, Star
Technology Shop, the said accused in his shop the HP
companies products like, laptop, adaptors, speakers,
batteries, logos are used in his shop in this case CW.1
Harish Kumar is the representative of the said company to
make a loss to the company the said accused the above
said articles are sold to the people and make loss to the HP
Company and committed offences punishable U/Sec.51(B)
and 63 Copy Right Act and cheated to public. Hence,
CW.1 lodged first information. The Station House Officer
registered a case in Cr.No.129/17 for the offences
punishable u/Sec. 51(B), 63 of Copy Right Act and
submitted First Information Report to this Court. After
3 CC NO.7816/18
investigation, Sub-Inspector of Halasurgate Police Station
filed charge sheet for the said offences punishable u/Sec.
51(B), 63 of Copy Right Act against the accused person.
Hence, he has committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is on bail. On receipt of charge sheet, this
court took the cognizance of the alleged offences and furnished
copy of the prosecution papers to the accused. After hearing on
charge, my learned Predecessor-in-Office has framed charge for
the offences punishable U/Sec.63 Copy Right Act for which
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has
examined 5 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and documents marked
at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4, and material objects marked at MO.1 to
MO.4, and CW.3 and CW.6 did not turn up in spite of taking
coercive steps and hence, they were dropped by rejected the
prayer of the Learned Sr.APP, and closed the side of the
prosecution evidence, and Statements u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. are
recorded, read over and explained in the vernacular language of
the accused, wherein accused have denied the incriminating
circumstances appeared against them as false and did not choose
4 CC NO.7816/18
to lead defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed. As
such, the matter was posted for arguments.
5. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
6. The PW.1 deposed that, he was the police constable in
Halsoor police station, the Anand Kumar PI called him for the
spot for making panchanama and seized the articles for the shop
of the accused in that regard EIPR companies Manager had given
a complaint stating that, the HP company battery adopters and
laptop duplicate parts are sold to the public, he along with the
HC and two panchas gone to the spot and in the presence of
panchas seized the articles as per the directions of the company
he lodged the complaint at Ex.P.2 and without getting permission
from the company they were selling directly to the public and
thereby they made illegal gain and they on authorized vendor of
company and in presences of panchas they have seized by
drawing Mahazar Ex.P.1 and seized the articles. During cross
examination of PW.1 he deposed that, along with other police
officials he went to the spot and he does not know which
duplicate parts are selling by the accused, he do not know
incident address and he further stated that, panchanama is typed
5 CC NO.7816/18
through DELL Company laptop but he is not stated in his
statement and in mahazar and examination in chief and he does
not know where the print out is taken.
7. PW.2 Chandrashekar - Head Constable deposed that,
he went to the spot along with two panchas and in the spot the
accused without any authority he sold duplicate HP parts like 10
adopters, speakers, battery and the complainant stated that, all
these articles are duplicate one and the said fact is admitted by
the accused. During the cross-examination he stated that, in this
case the complainant is the investigation officer and we issued
notice to the panchas. He further stated that, in the mahazar it is
not mentioned which colour the duplicate parts are existing and
he further stated that, he does not know the boundaries of the
spot.
8. PW.3 Anand Kumar retired PSI stated that, he was
taken a complaint from the complainant and he registered FIR
and he proceed to the accused shop and on the spot he seized
duplicate HP adapters, batteries and after seizing the articles the
pancha witness signature is taken. During the cross-examination
6 CC NO.7816/18
he stated that, he does not know the serial number of the
adapters and colour of the adopter and he does not received any
expert opinion about the rate of the seized articles.
9. PW.4 Vijaykumar stated that, he made a signature on
the spot on the panchanama and he know the articles and he
know the accused during the cross-examination he stated that, he
made a signature on the panchanama in the police station.
10. PW.5 Harish Kumar stated that, in his examination in
chief about 7 years he was in the company of EIPR as a
investigation officer and he got an information that, duplicate HP
products were sold out by the accused so he filed complaint
before the police station. Later along with the police and along
with panchas he went to the spot and he seized articles form the
spot and seized the 10 adopters, 150 speakers and 5 empty boxes
which are duplicate. During the cross-examination he did not
produced ID card before the court and in the mahazar battery
serial numbers are not mentioned and he further stated that, to
show that, the seized articles are original or duplicate he has not
having any documents.
7 CC NO.7816/18
11. The Ex.P.2 is EIPR certificate, Ex.P.3 is FIR, Ex.P.1 spot
panchanama. No doubt, Sec.65 of Indian Evidence Act provides
that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition
or contents of documents in the cases stated their in but the
Ex.P.2 are not covered under the cases stated in Sec.65 of Indian
Evidence Act. Moreover there is no evidence regarding where
about of the original articles. Consequently, they cannot be
admitted in evidence. The PW.1 to PW.5 have not deposed that
the alleged seized articles i.e. duplicate HP adopters, speakers,
were packed, sealed and pasted with a slip on them having
signatures of pancha witnesses and Investigating Officer.
Moreover, there is no legal evidence to prove that the alleged
seized materials and the concerned companies have got copyright
over the said materials. Hence, there is no clear, cogent and
reliable evidence to prove the guilt of accused as alleged by the
prosecution. The above evidence creates reasonable doubt in the
prosecution. The benefit of doubt always goes to accused. Hence,
I am of the considered opinion that prosecution failed to prove
the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I
proceed to pass the following:
8 CC NO.7816/18
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec.63 of Copy Right Act.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused stand cancelled, The property seized in PF No.42/17 shall be confiscated to State, after appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 4th day of January, 2020.) (P.C.Kurubett) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Venkappa.P.Hugar PW.2 : Chandrashekar.H. PW.3 : Anand Kumar PW.4 : Vijay Kumar PW.5 : Harish Kumar 9 CC NO.7816/18 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Panchanama Ex.P.1(a & b) : Signatures Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P.3 : FIR Ex.P3(a) & 3(b) : Signatures Ex.P.4 : EIPR Certificate List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1. Adaptors of HP Laptop MO.2. Battaries of HP Laptop MO.3. Speakers of HP Company MO.4. HP Battaries.
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.