Bangalore District Court
State By S.J.Park Police Station vs Nos.2 Was Found In Possession Of Pirated ... on 4 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 4th day of February 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. 13988/2013
2.Date of Offence 5-5-2012
3.Complainant State by S.J.Park Police Station
4.Accused 1. Veeraswami @ Veerappa
S/o Late Shivaiah, aged 42 years,
No.251, 6th Main Road, 6th Cross,
Behind Vidyapeeta, Gurura Layout,
Bangalore-08.
2. Babu Prasad
S/o Ram Prasad, aged 42 years,
No.240, 7th Cross, Behind
Vidyapeeta, Gururaja Layout,
Bangalore.
5. Offences complained Under Sections 52(A), 63 and 68A of
of Copyright Act, 1957 and section 292
and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 4-2-2016
2 C.C.No.13988/2013
REASONS
The Inspector of Police, S.J.Park Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against accused Nos.1
and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.52(A), 63 and 68(A) of
Copyright Act, 1957 and section 292 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of prosecution case are that on 5-5-
2012 in between 5-20 p.m. to 6-30 p.m., on footpath in front
of Ganesh Video shop, N.K.K complex, No.121, S.P.Road,
Bangaluru within the limits of S.J.Park Police Station the
accused Nos.2 was found in possession of pirated DVDs of
different language's of films over which films the members
companies of Super Cassette Industries had copyright, which
has been borrowed from accused No.1 and said DVDs did not
contain the name, address of the person who has made, the
name and address of the owner of the copyright, the year of its
publication without obtaining any written consent or license
from the copyright holder and further the accused No.1 and 2
were selling the said DVDs without the permission of copyright
holder, thereby infringed the copyright of different companies
and further the accused persons were found in possession and
selling of obscene DVDs, as if the said DVDs are being
supplied by the copyright holder company and thereby
cheated the general public as well as copyright holder
companies and committed aforesaid offences.
3 C.C.No.13988/2013
3. The accused Nos.1 and 2 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. 52(A), 63 and 68A of
Copyright Act, 1957 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 three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked two
documents as per Exs.P.1 and P.2 and also marked three
material objects as per MOs.1 to 3. Since C.Ws.2 and 3, 5 to 9
and 11 to 13 did not turn up before this court, in the interest
of speedy justice to the accused persons, by rejecting the
prayer of Sr.APP., this court dropped the examination of said
witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused persons,
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 both counsels and perused evidence on
record.
4 C.C.No.13988/2013
7. As stated above the prosecution to prove guilt against
accused persons has examined three witnesses. P.W.1
M.Chandra Shekar is the police inspector who conducted the
raid. P.W.2 Gavigowda.H.G is the Head Constable who
assisted P.W.1 in conducting the raid. P.W.3 Anil Chabriya is
the independent seizure mahazar witness. It appears, in spite
of giving sufficient opportunities the prosecution has not
examined another independent seizure mahazar witness and
police constables who assisted the investigation officer in
conducting the raid and expert who gave opinion regarding
seized DVDs.
8. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 indicating that P.W.1
received information from DCP Central Range regarding selling
of pirated DVDs in S.P. Road. Accordingly, himself, P.W.2, his
other staffs and panchas visited N.K.K complex on S.P. road
and found one person was selling pirated DVDs in front of
Ganesh Video shop on footpath. P.Ws.1 and 2 and other police
staffs caught hold the said person and on verification the said
DVDs did not contain logo, name of the company which has
produced and the certificate of film board. Accordingly, P.W.1
has seized hundred DVDs of Telugu language film, one
hundred and fifty of Tamil language films, hundred DVDs of
Hindi film and fifty obscene DVDs, in all he seized six hundred
DVDs. He took the custody of person who was selling the
same by name Babu Prasad the accused No.2 herein, enquired
5 C.C.No.13988/2013
regarding said DVDs, and came to know that accused No.1
one Veerappa is the owner of said DVDs. Thereafter, P.W.1
and others visited the sun video shop located at NKK complex,
2nd floor and informed regarding pirated DVDs and its
accessories. Since the said shop was locked, P.W.1 forcibly
had broken and found one thousand four hundred pirated
DVDs of Telugu, Tamil, Hindi and also obscene DVDs, in all he
found two thousand and seven hundred DVDs. Further he
found one monitor, CPU, keyboard, mouse, TV, DVD player,
stabilizer, remote control. Accordingly, he seized the same by
preparing the seizure mahazar. Thereafter, he took the
custody of accused No.2 and brought to the Police Station. He
registered the case and after completion of investigation filed
charge sheet before the court.
9. P.W.3 the independent seizure mahazar witness has
totally turned hostile. Though the learned Sr.APP., treated this
witness as hostile and further cross examined him but nothing
worth is elicited from him.
10. 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 above seized DVDs beyond all reasonable
doubt. Further, the prosecution has to prove that the said
6 C.C.No.13988/2013
DVDs are pirated and obscene and did not contain necessary
particulars as required under section 52A of the Copyright Act
and some companies had copyright over different language
films. Further, the prosecution has to prove that accused
No.1 is the owner of Sun Video shop where the raid conducted
and accused No.2 is the worker under accused No.1.
11. As stated above, the prosecution to prove seizure
mahazar has examined three witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 though
were subjected cross examination but nothing worth is elicited
from them to doubt their testimony in the matter of raid
preparing of seizure mahazar and seizer of DVDs, CDs and
obscene DVDs, computer and its accessories. Even though
P.W.3 independent seizure mahazar witness has turned
hostile, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.1
and 2. Therefore, from the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 it is very
much clear that the prosecution has successfully proved the
seizure mahazar of DVDs, CDs and obscene CDs, computer
and its accessories beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. It appears the investigating officer during the course
of investigation has obtained report from one Arun.P C.W.13
herein that seized DVDs and CDs are pirated and obscene and
did not contain necessary particulars as required under
section 52A of the Copyright Act. It appears, in spite of giving
sufficient opportunities the prosecution has not examined said
7 C.C.No.13988/2013
C.W.13. Even though the report given by C.W.13 is marked
through P.W.1, in my opinion mere marking of said report is
not conclusive proof unless the prosecution examines its
author. Since the prosecution has not examined C.W.13, I am
of the opinion that, the prosecution has failed to prove that,
the seized CDs and DVDs are pirated and not contained
necessary particulars, as required under section 52A of
Copyright Act.
13. It appears, the investigating officer has not collected
any documents and has not examined any witnesses to prove
that some company or member companies of Super Cassette
industries had copyright over different language films of seized
CDs and DVDs. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove
that the member companies of Super Cassette industries or
any other person had copyright over different language films
seized CDs and DVDs.
14. It appears the investigating officer has not collected
any documents and has not examined any witnesses to prove
that the accused No.1 is the owner of Sun Video shop.
Therefore, looking from any angle, I am of the considered
opinion that the evidence on record is insufficient to conclude
that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for
benefit of doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass the following.
8 C.C.No.13988/2013
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under sections 63 and 68(A) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 292 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bails bond and surety bonds stand cancelled.
M.Os.1 and 3 i.e., pirated DVDs and original DVDs are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
MO.2 computer and its accessories confiscated to government after appeal period is over. (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 4th day of February 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, M.Chandrashekara;
P.W.2, Gavigowda.H.G;
P.W.3, Anil Chabriya;
9 C.C.No.13988/2013
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1, Mahazar;
Ex.P.1(a), signature of P.W.3;
Ex.P.2, Report; LIST OF MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION: M.O.1 CDs M.O.2 Computer and its accessories and DVD player M.O.3 Original CDs and DVDs LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS &
MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore 10 C.C.No.13988/2013 Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 63 and 68(A) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 292 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bails bond and surety bonds stand cancelled.
M.Os.1 and 3 i.e., pirated DVDs and original DVDs are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over. MO.2 computer and its accessories are confiscated to government after appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore