Bangalore District Court
State By Cottonpet Police Station vs Nos.1 And 2 Has Examined Two Witnesses. ... on 20 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 20th day of March 2015
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 6829/2013
2.Date of Offence 6-3-2012
3.Complainant State by Cottonpet Police Station
4.Accused 1.Abdul Majeed, S/o Abdul Rouf,
aged 38 years, Jagadeeshanagar,
Thippasandra post, Bangalore
2.Ajamsharif @ Ajampasha S/o
Sheik Khasim, aged 30 years,
No.229, 6th main, 4th cross,
Jayanagar 1 Block, Bangalore
st
5. Offences complained U/s.51(1)(B) and 63(A) of Copyright
of Act and Sec.420 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 20-3-2015
2 C.C.No.6829/2013
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Cottonpet Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused
Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections
51(1)(B), 63(A) of Copyright Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
6-3-2012 within the limits of Cotton Police Station, in Tunk
Stall Towers shop, Godown No.17/9, situated at A.S.Char
street, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession and
selling of counterfeit Adidas and Levis T shirts without there
being any authorisation or written consent from the copyright
holder and were selling the same to the general public as if
the said clothes manufactured by Adidas and Levis company
and cheated the general public as well as to the copyright
holder company and thereby committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are on bail. On receipt of
chargesheet 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 framed the
charge for the offence punishable under Section 63 of
Copyright Act and Sec.420 of IPC and questioned the accused
persons regarding the charge made against them, they denied
the charge and claimed to be tried.
3 C.C.No.6829/2013
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case got
examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked only
one document at Ex.P1. Since C.Ws.1 to 3, 5, 6 and 8 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
and 2 as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., Accused Nos.1 and 2
denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them and
submitted that they have no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt against
accused Nos.1 and 2 has examined two witnesses. P.W.1
B.Thyagu is the representative of I.P.Consultant Ranjan
Narola Associates who said to have participated in the raid
and given information regarding selling of counterfeit T shirts
in the name of Adidas and Levis company. P.W.2
Shivakumaraswamy is the ASI who also said to have
participated in the raid. It appears, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record.
8. The testimony of P.W.1 indicating that on 6-3-2012
he lodged the complaint to the Inspector of CCB regarding
4 C.C.No.6829/2013
selling of counterfeit T shirts in the name of Adidas and
Reebok company. Accordingly, on the same day himself,
Inspector, his staff along with two persons visited A.S.Char
Street within the limits of Cottonpet Police Station. Further,
they visited the shop and found 1250 counterfeit T shirts. The
Police Inspector seized the 1100 counterfeit T shirts in the
name of Adidas Company and 150 counterfeit T shirts in the
name of Levis Company. He identified the same as counterfeit.
The police arrested two persons by name Abdul Mujeeb and
Abdul Pasha who are the accused before the court.
Thereafter, the police brought the seized cloths along with said
two persons to the Police Station for further investigation. It is
to be noted here that, further examination of P.W.1 was
deferred at the request of learned Sr.APP.,
9. The testimony of P.W.2 Shivakumaraswamy indicating
that on 6-3-2012 C.W.1 the PSI of CCB took him, C.Ws.5 and
6 along with C.W.4 to the A.S.Char Street Readymade shop.
C.W.1 introduced himself to the persons in the said shop by
name Abdul Majeed and Abdul Pasha. C.W.1 asked regarding
the counterfeit T shirts in the name of Adidas, Reebok and
Levis company. Accordingly, C.W.4 has conducted the search
in the said shop and found 1100 T shirts in the name of levis
company and 150 T shirts in the name of Adidas Company.
C.W.1 has seized the same in the presence of C.Ws.2 and 3 by
preparing seizure mahazar in between 1-15 p.m. to 3 p.m.
5 C.C.No.6829/2013
Thereafter, C.W.1 brought the seized clothes along with said
two persons to the Police Station for further investigation.
P.W.2 has identified his signature in the seizure mahazar as
Ex.P1(a). Even at the request of learned Sr.APP., further
examination of P.W.2 was deferred. Subsequently P.Ws.1 and
2 have not at all tendered for further examination.
10. As per well settled law, if any witness whose oral
evidence is recorded in part and for some reason his further
evidence is deferred and subsequently the said witness did not
turn up for further examination, in such circumstances
whatever the part of evidence of said witness cannot be looked
into. In the instant case, though P.Ws.1 and 2 have given their
part of evidence, they have not at all tendered for further
examination. Therefore, the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot
be looked into.
11. In a case like this, the offences have to be proved in a
circumstantial evidence by way of proving the seizure mahazar
of seized clothes. Further, the prosecution has to prove that
the seized clothes are counterfeit in the name of Adidas, Levis
and Reebok company. Further, the prosecution has to prove
that the Ranjan Narola Associates had copyright over the
products by name Adidas, Reebok and Levis. Further, the
prosecution has to prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the
owners of Tunk Stall Tower Shop. In the instant case to prove
6 C.C.No.6829/2013
the seizure mahazar, prosecution has examined two witnesses,
but the evidence of said witnesses cannot be looked into for
the reasons stated above. Therefore, the prosecution has
failed to prove the seizure mahazar of seized clothes.
12. Further, the prosecution has not examined any
witnesses and has not got marked any documents to show
that the seized products are counterfeit in the name of Adidas,
Reebok and Levis company and Ranjan Nurulla Associates
had copyright over the products by name Adidas, Reebok and
Levis. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that the
accused Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of Tunk Stall Tower shop
situated in A.S.Char Street. Therefore, having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on
record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of
doubt. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 63 of the Copyright Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
7 C.C.No.6829/2013Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. The properties seized under P.F.No.47/2012 of item No.1 and 2 are confiscated to the Government.
(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 20th day of March 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, B.Thyagu, P.W.2, Shivakumaraswamy;
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Mahazar, Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.2,
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS 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.
8 C.C.No.6829/2013Judgement 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 of the Copyright Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. The properties seized under P.F.No.47/2012 of item No.1 and 2 are confiscated to the Government.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
9 C.C.No.6829/2013Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.