Bangalore District Court
State By Halsurgate Police vs Persons Found In Possession And Selling ... on 28 July, 2022
1
KABC030343602016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 28th day of July 2022
Present : Sri.R.Mahesha.
BAL.LLB.,
IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CC No.13114/2016
1.C.C.No. 13114/2016
2.Date of offence 23/6/2014
3.Complainant State by Halsurgate Police
Station.
4.Accused 2. Guman S/o. Hanjaram
Aged about 26 years,
R/o. 199, 7th Cross,
Cubbonpet, Bengaluru.
1. Jalam @ Jalaram )
3. Ishwar. ( Split-up)
5. Offences U/Sec. 51(1)(B), 63 of
complained of Copyright Act.
2
6.Plea Accused No.2 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused No.2 is acquitted.
8.Date of Order 28/07/2022.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Halsurgate Police Station, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.51(B), 63 of Copyright Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.06.2014 at about 2.30 pm the accused persons found in possession and selling of duplicate Lenovo laptop chargers and adopters situated at shop No.131 New Link Technology, OTC Road, SPA Plaza, Bengaluru, within the limits of Halsoorgate Police Station of CW.1 Sri.Kevin John Regional Manager without obtaining any licence or permission from 3 CW.1 and thereby violated the copyright of the company and also caused loss to it. In this regard, CW.1 lodged first information statement and based on the same FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.190/2014 for the offence punishable u/Sec.51(B), 63 of Copyright Act. Thereafter, PI rushed to the spot and conducted raid and seized the alleged duplicate chargers and adopters by drawing panchanama.
3. After filing of the charge sheet this Court has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec. 51(B), 63 of Copyright Act and issued summons to the accused persons. Accused No.2 has appeared before this Court through his counsel and obtained bail. The copy of the charge sheet has been furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. But accused No.1 and 3 have not secured. Hence, case against the accused No.1 and 3 is split-up. After hearing both sides the charge has been framed and read over to accused No.2. But he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case has been posted for prosecution evidence.
4
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 4 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked only one document as Ex.P.1 and MO.1 and MO.2. Thereafter, the statement of the accused No.2 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 on 23.06.2014 at about 2.30 pm the accused persons found in possession and selling of duplicate Lenovo laptop chargers and adopters situated at shop No.131 New Link Technology, OTC Road, SPA Plaza, Bengaluru, within the limits of Halsoorgate Police Station of CW.1 Sri.Kevin John Regional Manager without obtaining any licence or permission from CW.1 and thereby violated the copyright of the company and also caused loss to it and thereby committed an offences punishable under Sec.51(B), 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 of IPC ?
(2) What order ?5
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 :- In order to bring home the guilt of the accused No.2 the prosecution has been examined police raid officials CW.4 and Cw.6 were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 both have clearly and categorically deposed that on 23/6/2014 at about 7.00 pm CW.9 called CW.4 to CW.7 and other police officers to came police station for raid shop No.131, SPA Plaza, 1st floor, Bengaluru. Accordingly, they went to police station and proceeded to the SPA Plaza, shop NO.132, Bengaluru, CW.9 called two witnesses through other police officers they were also present CW.9 visited the said shop and verified articles which are kept in that shop for selling the said shop owner had selling duplicate material of adopters and batteries of LENOVA Company. Further both deposed that CW.9 inspected and verified any licence the said shop owner had sold the above 6 adopters and batteries. But the said shop owner did not have any licence from Lenova company for selling adopters and batteries. Therefore, CW.9 seized duplicate articles of adopters and batteries which were found in shop No.132, 1st floor, SPA Plaza, Bengaluru and he drawn panchanama in prsence of panchas and other police witnesses as per Ex.P.1 and CW.9 took the properties and persons found in the said shop for further legal action. Both have identified accused who were present before this Court and Mos which are produced before this Court i.e. MO.1 and 2. Both have been subjected by cross-examination by the accused. During the course of cross-examination by PW.1 stated that before calling CW.2 and CW.3 CW.9 did not issue any notice in writing and they went to the spot from police station by walk. Further PW.1 clearly admitted that they did not mentioned in Ex.P.1 about manufactured dated, batch number, VAT and other particulars of batteries and adopters. Further PW.1 admitted that they have not mentioned actual price of batteries and adopters in Ex.P.1. 7
9. Further PW.1 clearly admitted that he did not seen particulars found in batteries and adopters. Further PW.1 clearly admitted that they did not call any experts to the spot to ascertain whether the said batteries and adopters are original or duplicate. Further PW.1 clearly and categorically admitted that they did not collect CCTV footage of the said shop and they have not called neighbour shop owners or buyers to become panchas to Ex.P.1. Further PW.1 admitted during the course of cross- examination that they did not collect any documents pertating to accused No.2 working in the said shop as labour or worker. Further PW.1 admitted that they did not signed in each page of Ex.P.1 and other formal suggestions made by the accused clearly and categorically denied.
10. Further during the course of cross-examination of PW.2 is stated that before calling CW.2 and CW.3 CW.9 did not issued any notice in writing and they went to the spot from police station by walk. Further PW.2 clearly admitted that they did not mentioned in Ex.P.1 about manufactured 8 dated, batch number, VAT and other particulars of batteries and adopters. Further PW21 admitted that they have not mentioned actual price of batteries and adopters in Ex.P.1.
11. Further PW.2 clearly admitted that he did not seen particulars found in batteries and adopters. Further PW.2 clearly admitted that they did not called any experts to the spot to ascertain whether the said batteries and adopters are original or duplicate. Further PW.2 clearly and categorically admitted that they did not collected CCTV footage of the said shop and they have not called neighbour shop owners or buyers to become panchas to Ex.P.1. Further PW.2 admitted during the course of cross- examination that they did not collected any documents pertating to accused No.2 working in the said shop as labour or worker. Further PW.2 admitted that they did not signed in each page of Ex.P.1 and other formal suggestions made by the accused clearly and categorically denied. 9
12. Prosecution examined owner of the shop by name Padamraj i.e. CW.8 has examined as PW.3. He deposed before this Court that he had one shop in SPA Plaza, Bengaluru. In the year 2014 he let into shop to accused No.1 for rent purpose he agreed to pay rent of Rs.19,000/- per month, they selling computer accessories in the said shop. He has been subjected by cross-examination by accused. During the course of cross-examination he stated that he did not aware how much employees working in accused No.1 shop. He did not gave any documents pertaining to rent agreement, rent paid receipts etc. He volunteers before this Court that after vacate shop by accused No.1 he destroyed all the documents pertaining to rent and rent paid receipts. Further Pw.3 unable to identify the accused No.2 who is present before this Court.
13. Further prosecution examined riding police officers and partial Investigation Officer of this case i.e. CW.9 as PW.4. He deposed before this Court that on 23/6/2014 at about 7.00 pm when he was on SHO duty he received 10 written complaint from CW.1 and registered case and proceed to conduct investigation and he called police officers for riding CW.4 to CW.7 and other police officers to raid shop No.131, SPA Plaza, 1 st floor, Bengaluru. Accordingly, he and his police officers proceeded to the SPA Plaza, shop No.132, Bengaluru, He called two witnesses through other police officers they were also present he visited the said shop and verified articles which are kept in that shop for selling the said shop owner had selling duplicate material of adopters and batteries of LENOVA Company. Further both deposed that he inspected and verified any licence the said shop owner had sell the above adopters and batteries. But the said shop owner did not have any licence from Lenova company for selling adopters and batteries. Therefore, he seized duplicate articles of adopters and batteries which were found in shop No.132, 1st floor, SPA Plaza, Bengaluru and he drawn panchanama in prsence of panchas and other police witnesses as per Ex.P.1 and he took the properties 11 and persons found in the said shop for further legal action. After complying arrest formalities he released the accused No.1 and 2 by getting bail bonds and released from his custody and he recorded the statements of CW.2 to Cw.7 and he wrote letter to Lenovo company for ascertaining whether seized articles are genuine articles or duplicate. Due to transfer order received by the police department he handed over file to CW.10 for further investigation. He identified MO.1 and MO.2 and accused No.2. He has been subjected cross-examined by the accused during the course of cross-examination he stated that he received documents from CW.1 to show CW.1 had been authorized agent of Lenovo company. The said documents proceeded before this Court. Further PW.4 clearly and categorically admitted that Ex.P.1 was in the letter head of EIPR. Further accused No.1 and 2 success in get admission from the mouth of PW.4 that CW.1 did not gave complaint i.e. Ex.P.1 in the letter head of Lenovo Company. Further it is elicited during the course of cross-examination that he 12 stated they went to spot for riding purpose in government jeep they did not mentioned the said jeep number in Ex.P.1. He did not issued any notice to panchas in writing. He did not took any search warrant from the Court. He did not seized any license VAT certificate pertaining to the shop of the accused No.1 during his investigation. Further PW.4 clearly admitted that he did not seen particulars found in batteries and adopters. Further PW.4 clearly admitted that they did not called any experts to the spot to ascertain whether the said batteries and adopters are original or duplicate. Further PW.4 clearly and categorically admitted that they did not collected CCTV footage of the said shop and they have not called neighbour shop owners or buyers to become panchas to Ex.P.1. Further PW.4 admitted during the course of cross-examination that they did not collected any documents pertaining to accused No.2 working in the said shop as labour or worker. Further PW.4 admitted that they did not signed in each page of Ex.P.1. PW.4 clearly admitted that he did not mentioned in 13 Ex.P.1 who written Ex.P.1 and other formal suggestions made by the accused clearly and categorically denied.
14. It is relevant to note that in spite of issuance of summons and witness warrant to CW.1 to CW.3, CW.4 CW.7 and CW.10 through the Deputy Commissioner of Police, they have not been secured before this Court. Therefore, non-examination of material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution has not produced any documents to show that the original company is having copyright over its chargers and adopters. Therefore, there is no supporting evidence from the independent witnesses to support the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
15. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
14
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 51, (B), 63 of copyright Act.
The bail bond of accused No.2 stands cancelled. The office is directed to keep the entire file in split-up CC No.31437/2021.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of July 2022).
(R.Mahesha) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW.1: Harish PW.2 Jagadish PW.3: Padmaraj PW.4: Ravi Patil.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Panchanama.15
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 & 2 : Chargers & adoptors.
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.16
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 51, (B), 63 of copyright Act.
The bail bond of accused No.2 stands cancelled. The office is directed to keep the entire file in split-up CC No.31437/2021.
IX ACMM, Bengaluru.