Bangalore District Court
Sri.Aswin Naidu Without Obtained ... vs And Issued Summons To Him. The Copy Of The on 29 October, 2022
1
KABC030339002014
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 29th day of October 2022
Present : Sri.R.Mahesha,
B.A.L., LL.B.,
IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CC No.12935/2014
1.C.C.No. 12935/2014
2.Date of offence During the year 2007
3.Complainant State by Parappana Agrahara
Police Station.
4.Accused 1. Amaresh K J
S/o.C. Jayadev
No.D 67/1,
Metagalli Industrial
Estate, Mysuru.
5. Offences U/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act
complained of
2
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted.
8.Date of Order 29/10/2022.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed private complaint u/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused seeking to refer the same to the jurisdictional police station for investigation u/Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. This Court has referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police station for investigation. Based on the same the police have registered FIR in Cr.No.282/10 and conducted the investigation. Thereafter, the Police Sub- Inspector of J P Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.63 of copyright act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that during the year 3 2007 the accused was working in complainant company i.e. Elehem Technik Private Limited Company within the limits of J P Nagar police station, he left the office and taken Master File and Date of complainant and infringed the right of complainant - Sri.Aswin Naidu without obtained permission from CW.1 and violated the Copyright of CW.1. In this regard, CW.1 lodged complaint at J P Nagar Police Station. Based on the same FIR came to be registered in Cr.No. 282/2010 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act. Thereafter, PI completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act.
3. After registration of FIR accused has appeared before this Court through his counsel and obtained bail. After filing of the charge sheet this Court has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable u/Sec.63 of copyright act against the accused and issued summons to him. The copy of the charge sheet has been furnished to the accused as per 4 Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the charge has been framed and read over to him. But he has 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 only one witness as PW.1 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Thereafter, the statement of the accused u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He has not chosen to adduce his 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 during the year 2007 the accused was working in complainant company i.e. Elehem Technik Private Limited 5 Company within the limits of J P Nagar police station, he left the office and taken Master File and Date of complainant and infringed the right of complainant -
Sri.Aswin Naidu without obtained permission from CW.1 and violated the Copyright of CW.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 63 of Copyright Act ?
(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 :- It is well settled that in a criminal case the entire burden of proof rests upon the prosecution and the accused need to prove nothing. Suffice for the accused to create doubt about the case of the prosecution and the reliability of the witnesses for the prosecution.
9. The main allegation of the prosecution is that during the year 2007 the accused was working in complainant company i.e. Elehem Technik Private Limited Company within the limits of J P Nagar police station, he left the office and 6 taken Master File and Date of complainant and infringed the right of complainant - Sri.Aswin Naidu without obtained permission from CW.1 and violated the Copyright of CW.1. Therefore, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused. As already stated supra, the prosecution has examined only one witness as PW.1 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5.
10. In order to prove the case of the complainant company one authorized person and Executive Director of complainant company B J Ashwin Naidu examined as PW.1. He deposed before this Court that after intensive research and development has invented new product called the Electro Chemical Deburring machine the product is called Burrgon 25 V 3. The complainant company sought for grant of a patent and his application is pending before the concerned authority. The accused joined the company as an Engineer in the year 1986. He was entrusted with designing fixtures and other allied works. The accused was required to signed the personal 7 manual which stipulated that the private information of the company is to be protected and confidentiality maintained. The computer is concerned part of the confidential material and accused is not entitled to utilize without authorisation. The accused served in the company till July 2007. All of a sudden he stopped attending work without prior intimation. On 23/7/2007 the accused sent a resignation letter and sought to be relieved of his duties. It is brought to the notice of complainant company though his customer that the accused was manufacturing a similar machine as that of the complainant company. Therefore, they lodged complaint before this Court and requesting this Court for referring investigation through J P Nagar police station. This Court considered the request of complainant company and matter referred for investigation to J P Nagar police station. After thorough investigation by Investigation Officer of this case he submitted B report before this Court. The complainant challenged the B report and gave his sworn statement and placed relevant documents before this Court . After appreciate 8 the oral and documentary evidence this Court took cognizance for the offence punishable u/Sec.63 of copyright act. He identified documents which are marked before this Court and accused. He has been subjected by cross-examination by accused at length it is elicited during the course of cross- examination that Ex.P.2 is a patent document of complainant company, before 1995 the Elechem take company had in the single ownership he joined complainant company in the year 1987 as Executive Director. Since 1983 to 2005 company products are in the same shape. After 2005 complainant company products shapes are improved he mainly placed reliance Ex.P.2 regarding company products shapes. Ex.P.1 had in blank except signature. It is admitted by PW.1 that he produced only patent document before this Court. They applied patent application before concerned authority in the year 2009. The said application is still pending for consideration. Further it is admitted that in the year 2019 the said patent application submitted by complainant company disposed as abandoned. It is clear admission from PW.1 that 9 as on the date of filing of this complaint the complainant company had no patent right on the product of this case. Further he stated during the course of cross-examination that the accused manufacturing same product of the complainant company to prove this fact he produced catalog and fisibility report of accused. Further it is elicited from the mouth of PW.1 that the product of complainant company permitted to use by mentioning patent number and he denied other formal suggestion during the course of cross-examination.
11. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence it is reveals and admitted facts that the accused had joined the complainant company as an Engineer in the year 1984 and he resigned to his job on 17/07/2007. The present complaint filed by the complainant company against the accused for the alleged offence punishable u/Sec.380, 403, 417 of IPC r/w Sec.63 of copyright act. The J P Nagar SHO has submitted B report against the complaint filed by the complainant 10 company. This Court took cognizance only for the offence punishable u/Sec.63 of copyright act.
12. After resigned the accused had filed petition against complainant company before Labour Court in application No.10/2007. The petition filed by the accused against complainant company allowed by III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru and directed complainant company management to pay an amount of Rs.30,300/- to the accused/applicant with 12% interest from the date of application i.e. from 12/09/2007. The present accused preferred petition before Assistant Labour Commissioner in ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಃ ಸಕಾಆಬೆಂ4/ಪಿಜಿಎ/ಸಿಆರ್-160/2007-08. The said petition also allowed on 7/11/2008 and directing complainant company to pay PF amount with interest to accused from the date on 17/07/2007. The present complaint filed against the accused before this Court on 8/4/2010. So it is revealed from the documents placed by the accused before the Investigation Officer that there is a dispute between complainant company 11 and accused regarding benefits provided by the complainant company. The accused approached competent authority to get his benefits from complainant company. The complainant company in the year 2010 filed this complaint against the accused for infringement of copyright. Admittedly, the complainant company did not produced any documents to show this company had copyright to produce Electro Chemical Debaring machine the product is called Burrgon 25 V 3. It is clearly admitted by PW.1 that he has not obtained any copyright for any of the machines he was using in his firm. Further it is elicited from the mouth of PW.1 that they applied for the patent to his firm the said application disposed as rejected by the Government of India patent office Chennai on 10/04/2019. No copyright obtained by Electro Chemical Deburring machine the product is called Burrgon 25 V 3. No iota of evidence and documents produced by the complainant company and complainant company has not produced any documents. Therefore, the complainant company has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused 12 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
13. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act.
The bail bond executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 29 th day of October 2022).
(R.Mahesha) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
13ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW.1: Ashwin Naidu.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Company catalog Ex.P.2&3 : Resignation letters of accused Ex.P.4 : Reply letter Ex.P.5 : Copy of patent.
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.14
29/10/22 Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 63 of Copyright Act.15
The bail bond executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically.
IX ACMM, Bengaluru.