Bangalore District Court
State By Jnanabharathi Police vs Persons For The Offences Punishable ... on 5 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 5th day of May 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 13534/2013
2.Date of Offence 1-7-2013
3.Complainant State by Jnanabharathi Police
Station
4.Accused 1. S.M.Mariswamy S/o.Marigowda,
Aged 38 Years, No.70,
13th Cross, Vidyapeetha Circle,
Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore.
2. Chandra S/o. Nagaraja,
Aged 26 Years, No.457, opposite
Dr.AIT College, 80 feet ring road,
Kengunte, Mallathhalli,
Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s. 51(a), 51(b), 51(1), 63 of
of Copyright Act.
6.Plea Accused No. 1 and 2 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused No. 1 and 2 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 5-5-2015
2 C.C.No.13534/2013.
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Jnanaabharathi Police
Station, Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the
accused persons for the offences punishable 51(a), 51(b),
51(1), 63 of Copyright Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
1-7-2013 at 3.30 P.M., within the limits of Jnanabharathi
police station in S.K.Enterprises situated opposite to Dr.AIT
college, No.457, at Mallathhalli ring road, Bangalolre, the
accused No.1 being the owner of said shop and accused No.2
being the worker were found in possession and selling the
counterfeit/duplicate Quantitative Aptitude book written by
Dr.R.S.Agarwal and it is stored in the computer to take print
out whenever required without there being any authorisation
or written consent from the copyright holder viz., M/s.
S.Chand and Company Pvt., Ltd., and thereby infringed the
copyright and committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.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 63 of Copyright Act, for
which the accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed
to tried.
3 C.C.No.13534/2013.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case got
examined only one witness as P.W.1 and got marked two
documents at Exs.P.1 and P.2.
5. Since, there is no incriminating evidence against the
accused Nos.1 and 2, their statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is
dispensed with.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove the guilt against accused
Nos.1 and 2 has examined 2 witnesses by name P.Muniraju
said to be the owner of building of S.K.Enterprises shop where
the alleged books were printing. The testimony of P.W.1
indicating that he knows accused No.1 who is his tenant for
the last three years in a building belonged to him and is
conducting xerox business. There was lease agreement
between him and accused No.1 as per Ex.P.1. However, he
does not know the facts of this case and he has not given any
statement to the police. Since, P.W.1 has not deposed as per
the case of the prosecution he has been, treated as hostile. In
the cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that the accused
No.1 is running xerox business in the name and style as
S.K.Xerox in his building and he is keeping the computer in
his shop. But he denied the suggestion that the accused No.1
printed spurious books in the name of S.Chand Company and
stored in his computer. However, he admitted that still
4 C.C.No.13534/2013.
accused No.1 is continuing in his business in the shop
belonged to him. It is to be noted here that, the testimony of
P.W.1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, from the evidence of
P.W.1 it is no doubt true that the accused No.1 is the owner of
S.K.Enterprises as per the case of the prosecution.
8. As stated above, in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record.
9. The order sheet indicating that charge was framed on
19-2-2014, subsequently, summons has been issued on three
occasions, bailable warrant has been issued on three
occasions, non-bailable warrant has been issued on three
occasions to all the witnesses, even the concerned police was
directed to produce the books seized and other seized articles
in this case, but they have failed to produce the same. It is to
be further noted here that on 4-3-2015 CW.7 the investigation
officer was present before the court for want of production of
seized books and other items, his examination was deferred.
Even there after till this day the concerned police have not
produced the same for the reason best known to them.
Therefore, I find negligent on the part of SHO of
Jnanabharathi police.
5 C.C.No.13534/2013.
10. The shara made by the concerned police dated 3-9-
2014 indicating that since the process police have been
deputed for special duty, he has not served summons to any
witnesses. But no shara pertaining to repeated summons and
bailable warrant issued to all the witnesses on every dates of
hearing. Moreover, the Investigating Officers are still working
within the jurisdiction of this court but for the reasons best
known to them having knowledge of this case, have not
appeared before the court. In my opinion, the concerned
police have ignored their responsibility. This case is of the
year 2013 but in spite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
concerned police have not executed bailable warrant & non-
bailable warrants issued against the witnesses. Therefore, in
the interest of speedy justice to the accused persons, the
prayer of Learned Sr.APP was rejected & examination of C.W.1
to 4 and 6 dropped. Though P.W.1 has partly supported the
case of the prosecution, his evidence is not sufficient to
conclude that, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. Moreover, the prosecution has not
examined the competent person to explain how the seized
books are spurious.
11. Though the prosecution to prove guilt against A1 and
2 has examined only one witness, the evidence of said witness
is not sufficient to connect the accused persons for the
offences alleged against them. Apart from this, the prosecution
6 C.C.No.13534/2013.
has not examined any witnesses and has not been marked any
documents to prove that the seized books are spurious in the
name of Quantitative Aptitude printed and published by M/s
S.Chand and Company. Further the prosecution has not
examined any witnesses and has not got marked any
documents to show that the said M/s. S.Chand and Company
Pvt., Ltd., had copyright over quantitative aptitude book
authored by Dr.R.S.Agarwal. Therefore, looking from any angle
this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution
has failed to prove the guilt against accused No.1 and 2
beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, A1 and 2 are
entitled for benefit of doubt.
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s. 63 of Copyright Act.
Hence acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
The property seized under P.F.No.90/2013 item No.1 is being worthless shall be destroyed, item No.2 CPU, Monitor, Kee Board and Mouse, item No.3 cash of Rs.430/- and item No. 4 Mobile Phone are confiscated to Government after appeal period is over. Further, the Idea sim card and Tata Docomo 7 C.C.No.13534/2013. sim card are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Issue direction to SHO of Jnanabarathi Police to produce the properties seized under PF No. 90/2013 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 5th day of May 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 P.Muniraju LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Agreement Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 Statement
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.13534/2013.Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s. 63 of Copyright Act.
Hence acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
The property seized under P.F.No.90/2013 item No.1 is being worthless shall be destroyed, item No.2 CPU, Monitor, Kee Board and Mouse, item No.3 cash of Rs.430/- and item No. 4 Mobile Phone are confiscated to Government after appeal period is over. Further, the Idea sim card and Tata Docomo sim card are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Issue direction to SHO of Jnanabarathi Police to produce the properties seized under PF No. 90/2013 forthwith.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
9 C.C.No.13534/2013.