Bangalore District Court
State By Adugodi Police Station vs Nos on 27 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 27th day of January 2016
Present: Sri.J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 15460/2012
2.Date of Offence 14-3-2010
3.Complainant State by Adugodi Police Station
4.Accused 1. Vijay s/o Sanjeevappa, aged 35
years, residing at Mariyappa
Building, Hebbagodi, Gollahalli
Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore.
2. Nagaraja ( split up)
3. Sudhakara @ Sudha S/o Mohan
Velu, aged 35 years, No.677, Pipe
Line Road, Near Lakshmi Tent,
Bangalore.
4. Saleem S/o Syed, aged 25 years,
No.622, Bandappa Road, Near
Railwaystation, Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore.
5. V.Tinku S/o Vasmadev
Ramachandran, aged 42 years,
No.01, K.V.Lane, 1st Floor,
Cottonpet Main Road, Bangalore.
2 C.C.No.15460/2012
6. Venkatesh ( split up)
7. Ramesh ( split up)
8. Kitti ( split up)
9. Vijay Kumar ( split up)
10. Murthy ( split up)
11. D.N.Ramachandra S/o Vema
Reddy, aged 40 years, residing at
Mariyappanapalya, Bangalore.
12. Kumar ( split up)
13. Niyaz ( split up)
14. Rajendra Prasad ( split up)
15. Prabhakara ( split up)
16. Mohammed Kaleel ( split up)
17. Madan ( split up)
18. Syed Saleem Pasha ( split up)
19. Mehaboob S/o Mohammed
Shariff, aged 38 years, No.156,
Sondekoppa, Bangalore.
20. Deepak Pashiq ( split up)
21. Bharath ( split up)
22. Umesh ( split up)
23. Anand S/o Ganganna, aged 22
years, residing at 2nd Phase,
Kuvempu Nagar, Gangamma
Circle, Bangalore.
24. Ravi S/o Sakriya Naik, aged 25
years, residing at Doctor Layout,
Arakere, B.G.Road, Bangalore.
25. Ashraf ( split up)
26. Nagesh Naik S/o Kuppa Naik,
aged 31 years, Anjaneya Temple,
3 C.C.No.15460/2012
Kadubisanahalli, Bangalore.
27. Sajid ( split up)
28. Venkatesh @ K.K ( split up)
29. Manju S/o Bairegowda, aged
35 years, No.04, Honkong Bazaar,
Gandhinagar, Bangalore.
30. Imran, aged 36 years, No.14,
Dharamaram Koyil Street,
Shivajinagar, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained Under Sections 51, 52(A), 63 and
of 68(A) of Copyright Act, 1957 and
Section 292 and 420 of IPC.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, 11, 19, 23,
24, 26, 29, 30 pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, 11, 19, 23,
24, 26, 29, 30 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 27-1-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Adugodi Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to
30 for the offences punishable U/s.51, 52(A), 63 and 68(A) of
Copyright Act, 1957 and section 292 and 420 of IPC. It
appears, during the pendency of this case accused Nos.2, 6 to
10, 12 to 18, 20 to 22, 25, 27 and 28 remained absent before
the court and as such, vide order dated 23-1-2016 this case
against said accused persons is split up and ordered to
4 C.C.No.15460/2012
register separate case against them but it appears, so far the
office has not registered separate case.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14-
3-2010 on footpath in front of Tribhuvan Talkies near forum
mall, Adugodi, within the limits of Adugodi police station the
accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, 11, 19, 23, 24, 26, 29 and 30 and other
accused persons against whom this case is split up were found
in possession and selling of pirated CDs and DVDs of different
language films and further the accused persons were found in
possession of 4770 pirated DVDs of Hindi, English and other
language films and 600 DVDs of different language films and
also obscene DVDs in godown situate at Avalahalli,
Anjanapura post, J.P.Nagar 9th phase, Bangalore over which
films the member companies of Super Cassette Industries had
copyright without obtaining any license or permission from the
said copyright holders, further the said CDs and DVDs did not
contain the certificate under the cinematography Act, the
name address of the person who has made the video film and
a declaration by him that he has obtained necessary license or
consent from the owner of the copyright in such work for
making such video film and thereby infringed the copyright of
the said companies and further the accused persons were
selling the same to the public as if said CDs, DVDs and MP3s
are being supplies by the copyright holders and thereby
5 C.C.No.15460/2012
cheated the public as well as copyright holder companies and
committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, 11, 19, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30
are on bail. On receipt of charge sheet, this court took
cognizance of the offences and furnished the copies of the
prosecution papers to the accused persons. After hearing on
charges, this court has framed the charge for the offences
punishable U/s.63 and 68(A) of Copyright Act and section 292
and 420 of IPC., questioned the accused persons regarding the
charge made against them, they denied the charge and
claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has
examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 but no documents
are marked. Since C.Ws.1 to 6 and 8 to 12 did not turn up
before this court, by rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP., this court
dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused Nos.1, 3
to 5, 11, 19, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30 as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C.,
they denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them
and submitted that they have no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused
the evidence on record.
6 C.C.No.15460/2012
7. As stated above, the prosecution to prove guilt against
accused persons has examined two witnesses. P.W.1
Y.Chandrappa is the head constable who assisted the
investigating officer in conducting the raid. P.W.2
R.Manjunath is the police inspector who filed charge sheet
against accused persons. In spite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. The testimony of P.W.1 indicating that
on 14-3-2010 at 12-00 p.m., C.W.1 took him, C.Ws.8 and 9
along with panchas near forum at 12-00 p.m. and found
selling the CDs on the footpath by two persons. C.W.1 verified
and found 1200 pirated CDs, 3 obscene CDs and cash of
Rs.1,700/-. They came to know the name of said persons as
Vijay and Nagaraj. C.W.1 has seized the same by preparing
the seizure mahazar. Thereafter, he, C.W.1 and his colleagues
along with said accused persons visited police station and
produced before C.W.12 the police inspector of Audugodi
police station. Thereafter, C.W.12 took him, his other
colleagues along with accused to the Gandhinagar found
twenty-four persons and on enquiry, they came to know that
one Manju and Venkatesh were supplying the CDs. In all they
found twenty three thousand and fifteen CDs and out of which
fifty CDs are obscene, three-hundred are DVDs and CDs and
cash of Rs.42,000/-. C.W.12 has seized the same by preparing
the seizure mahazar. Further C.W.12 has seized six thousand
five hundred pirated CDs, five hundred obscene CDs from one
7 C.C.No.15460/2012
Tasir by preparing seizure mahazar. Thereafter, they brought
accused persons and seized CDs to the police station. It
appears for want of deposit of seized CDs, DVDs, MP3s and
cash, further examination of P.W.1 deferred. Subsequently,
P.W.1 not tendered for further examination.
8. P.W.2 R.Manjunath the investigation officer has
deposed regarding filing of charge sheet only. In my opinion,
the testimony of P.W.2 is only formal one and need not
required detailed consideration.
9. As stated above, in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. In a case like this, the offences have to
be, proved in a circumstantial evidence by way of proving the
seizure mahazar of the seized CDs, DVDs, obscene CDs and
cash. Further, the prosecution has to prove that, seized CDs
and DVDs are pirated and did not contain necessary
particulars as required under section 52(A) of the Copyright
Act. Further, the prosecution has to prove that some company
or persons had copyright over different language films of
seized CDs and DVDs. Further, the prosecution has to prove
that accused persons were in possession and selling of pirated
CDs and DVDs on footpath and in the godown.
8 C.C.No.15460/2012
10. Upon perusal of charge sheet it is seen that the on
14-3-2010 at Adugodi main road, Hosur Lashkar road, in front
of forum mall on footpath the investigation officer has seized
one-thousand-two-hundred CDs of different language of films,
three obscene CDs, cash of Rs.1,700/-, two bags and two
tables from accused Nos.1 and 2 by preparing the seizure
mahazar. Further on 14-3-2010 itself in between 3-30 to 4-30
p.m., the investigation officer has seized twenty-thousand
CDs, DVDs of Hindi, English language films, three-thousand
MP-s of different language films, fifty obscene CDs and cash of
Rs.42,000/- in godown located at 1st floor below Tribuvan
lodge, Gandhinagar from the custody of accused No.3
Sudhakar. Further, on the same day between 5-00 to 6-00
p.m., in godown No.14 at Dhararaj Koil Street, Shivajinagar,
Bangalore has seized six thousand five hundred CDs and
DVDs of different language films, five hundred obscene CDs by
preparing the seizure mahazars.
11. It appears, in spite of giving sufficient opportunities,
the prosecution has not examined any witnesses to the above
referred seizure mahazars. Though the prosecution has
examined head constable who, said to have participated in the
raid, admittedly said P.W.1 is not signatory to the above
referred seizure mahazars. Moreover, P.W.1 has not explained
the seizure mahazars as referred above. Moreover, he has not
tendered for further examination and as such, his testimony
9 C.C.No.15460/2012
cannot be, looked into. Therefore, the prosecution to prove
above referred seizure mahazars has not examined any
witnesses. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that
the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure mahazars
beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. It appears, during the course of investigation the
investigating officer has obtained report regarding the seized
CDs and DVDs as pirated and did not contain necessary
particular as required under section 52(a) of the Copyright Act
from one H.Syed Imran C.W.11 herein. It appears, in spite of
giving sufficient opportunities the prosecution has not
examined said C.W.11. Even the prosecution has not
examined the investigating officer who received said report.
Absolutely, no evidence on record to prove that, the seized
CDs, DVDs are pirated and obscene and did contain necessary
particulars as required under section 52(A) of the Copyright
Act.
13. Further, it appears the investigating officer has not
collected copyright certificate of any language films and songs
of seized CDs and DVDs. Absolutely, no evidence on record to
hold that some person or companies had copyright over
different language films and songs of seized CDs and DVDs.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused
10 C.C.No.15460/2012
persons have infringed the copyright of some person or
company over different language films and songs.
14. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused
persons were in possession and selling of pirated CDs, DVDs
and obscene CDs on footpath and in godown. It appears, the
investigating officer not examined any witnesses who are the
owners of shop in front of which shops some of the accused
persons were selling pirated CDs and DVDs and not collected
any documents about ownership of accused persons over
godown where raid conducted. Therefore, looking from any
angle, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has
failed to prove guilt against accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, 11, 19, 23,
24, 26, 29 and 30 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, above
named accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt. In
the result, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, 11, 19, 23, 24, 26, 29 and 30 for the offences under sections 63 and 68(A) of the Copyright Act and Section 292 and 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, 11, 19, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
11 C.C.No.15460/2012Office to retain entire case papers of this case and seized properties if any in split up case to be register against accused Nos.1, 6 to 10, 12 to 18, 20 to 22, 25, 27 and 28. Further office to register separate case against said accused persons forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of January 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, Chandrappa.H P.W.2, R.Manjunatha
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore