Bangalore District Court
State By Halsoorgate vs No.4 Has Been Split Up. The Copy Of The ... on 16 October, 2021
1 CC NO.495/2018
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 16th day of October 2021
Present : Sri.Arun Sadashiv Gudigenavar,
B.A., LL.B., (Hon's) L.L.M.,
IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CC NO.495/2018
1.C.C.No. 495/2018
2.Date of offence 01/12/2015
3.Complainant State by Halsoorgate
Police Station.
4.Accused 1. Kalaram Purohit S/o.Salaram
Aged about 31 years,
R/No.20/1, 2nd floor,
N.T.Pet, Ganiger C Lane,
Maldarpet, Bengaluru.
2. Jitesh Hemaraj Purohit,
R/o.Choulugalli, 4th floor,
1st Main Road, Bengaluru.
3. Udesh S/o.Himtaram
Aged about 24 years,
R/No.70, 3rd floor,
Cubbonpet, Main Road,
Bengaluru.
2 CC NO.495/2018
5. Akash Purohit S/o.Himaram
Purohit,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o.Choulugalli, Cupponpet,
Bengaluru.
6. Krishna S/o.Jeshraj Jee,
Aged about 23 years,
R/o. 27th Cross, 2nd floor,
Cubbonpet, Bengaluru.
4. Ganapathi Singh (Split-up)
5. Offences U/Sec.51(b), 63 of Copyright Act.
complained of
6.Plea Accused No.1 to 3, 5 & 6 pleaded
not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused No. 1 to 3, 5 & 6 are
acquitted.
8.Date of Order 16/10/2021.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Halsoorgate Police Station, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 51(B), 63 of Copyright Act.
3 CC NO.495/2018
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 01-12-2015 at 3.00 pm at Aviva Enterprises No.128, 1 st floor, Sunshine Infomatic No.126, 1st floor, OTC Road, SPA Plaza, Bengaluru, and Sky Technologies No.12, 1st floor, S.P.Road Cross, situated at Tigalarapet, Muniswamappa Lane, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 to 6 were found in possession and selling of duplicate HP Laptop batteries, adopters and panel products by labeling them as a HP Company and they were also involved in supplying the same to SP Road areas within the jurisdiction of Halsoorgate police station and causing loss to the original HP Company. Immediately, in this regard, CW.1 lodged the First Information Statement. Based on his complaint FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.467/2015 for the offence punishable u/Sec.52(B), 63 of Copyright Act. Thereafter, the Police went to the spot along with CW.1 and seized all the products by drawing panchanama. Thereafter, CW.10 Police Inspector completed the investigation 4 CC NO.495/2018 and filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the above said offence.
3. After filing of the charge sheet this Court has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable u/Sec. 51(B), 63 of Copyright Act and issued summons. In response to summons the accused No.1 to 6 have appeared before this Court through their counsel and obtained bail. Thereafter, the case against the accused No.4 has been split up. The copy of the charge sheet has been furnished to the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides the charge has been framed and read over to accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 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 3 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked 2 documents as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Therefore, the statement of the accused No. 5 CC NO.495/2018 1 to 3, 5 and 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.
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 01-12-2015 at 3.00 pm at Aviva Enterprises No.128, 1st floor, Sunshine Infomatic No.126, 1st floor, OTC Road, SPA Plaza, Bengaluru, and Sky Technologies No.12, 1 st floor, S.P.Road Cross, situated at Tigalarapet, Muniswamappa Lane, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 to 6 were found in possession and selling of duplicate HP Laptop batteries, adopters and panel products by labeling them as a HP Company and they were also involved in supplying the same to SP Road areas within the jurisdiction of Halsoorgate police station and causing loss to the original HP Company and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 51(B), 63 of Copyright Act ?
(2) What order ?6 CC NO.495/2018
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 on 01-12-2015 at 3.00 pm at Aviva Enterprises No.128, 1 st floor, Sunshine Infomatic No.126, 1st floor, OTC Road, SPA Plaza, Bengaluru, and Sky Technologies No.12, 1 st floor, S.P.Road Cross, situated at Tigalarapet, Muniswamappa Lane, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 to 6 were found in possession and selling of duplicate HP Laptop batteries, adopters and panel products by labeling them as a HP Company and they were also involved in supplying the same to SP Road areas within the jurisdiction of Halsoorgate police station and causing loss to the original HP Company. Therefore, the burden is on the prosecution to establish that the HP Company is having copyright and the same has been infringed by the accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6. As already stated supra, the prosecution has 7 CC NO.495/2018 examined in all 3 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked 2 documents as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.
9. At the outset the prosecution has examined police officials CW.5 Umesh as PW.1 and CW.6 Yamunappa Bhajantri as PW.2 who had participated in conducting the alleged raid. They have deposed that on 1-12-2015 at around 3.00 pm CW.9 took them and CW.7 and panch witnesses CW.2 and CW.3 to the Aveena Enterprises situated at No.128, 1st floor, SPA Plaza, OTC Road. Further they have deposed that at the spot accused No.4 was present and CW.1 verified the products and opined that they were all duplicate products resembling to the products of HP Company. Further they have deposed that at around 3.55 pm they went to the shop called Sunrises in the same building and accused No.5 was present at the spot and CW.1 verified the products and came to know that they were all duplicate products resembling to HP Company. Further they have deposed that at around 4.55 pm they went to the shop situated at MS Lane, SP 8 CC NO.495/2018 Road and accused No.6 was present at the spot and CW.1 verified the products and came came to that they were all duplicate products resembling to HP Company. Immediately, CW.9 arrested the accused and seized all the duplicate products by drawing panchanama as per Ex.P.1. In their cross- examination they have admitted that they did not mention the model, batch number and MRP of the alleged duplicate products in the panchanama.
10. The prosecution has further examined another police official CW.10 Anand Kumar as PW.3. He has deposed that on 04-04-2017 he received the case file from CW.9 and conducted the further investigation. Further he has deposed that he has arrested accused No.4 to 6 and recorded their voluntary statement and released them on station bail. Thereafter, he received the report from the HP Company and completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 6. In his cross-examination he has admitted that they did not 9 CC NO.495/2018 mention the model, batch number and MRP of the alleged duplicate products in the panchanama.
11. It is relevant to note that from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 in the light of their cross-examination it clearly shows that they have not utter single word about the role played by accused No.1 to 3 in committing the alleged offence. Further it is relevant to note that the police or the prosecution have not secured the other material witnesses before this Court in spite of issuance of proclamation and summons through Deputy Commissioner of Police. Therefore, non-examination of material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. Further it is relevant to note that the prosecution has not got marked any documents to show that the Company of CW.1 is having a copyright. Therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to bring cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 have infringed the Copyright of Company of CW.1. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges 10 CC NO.495/2018 levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
12. 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, 5 and 6 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/Sec.51(B), 63 of Copyright Act. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 stands cancelled.
The office is directed to keep the entire case file in split-up after registering same against the accused No.4. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of October 2021).
(Arun Sadashiv Gudigenavar) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.11 CC NO.495/2018
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW.1: Umesh PW.2: Yamunappa Bhajantri PW.3: Anand Kumar.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.1(a&b): Signatures of PW.1 & PW.2 Ex.P.2 : Report. Ex.P.2(a): Signature of PW.3.
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.12 CC NO.495/2018
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/Sec.51(B), 63 of Copyright Act. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 stands cancelled.
The office is directed to keep the entire case file in split-up after registering same against the accused No.4.
IX ACMM, Bengaluru.