Bangalore District Court
State By Indranagar Police Station vs No.1 Were Selling Pirated Cds And Dvds Of ... on 11 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 11th 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.CC No 11010/2013
2.Date of Offence 14-12-2011
3.Complainant State by Indranagar Police Station
4.Accused 1. Latheef S/o Abdul, aged 34 years,
Residing at No.276, 1st Cross,
Near Yellamma Temple,
Motappanapalya, Indiranagar,
Bangalore.
2. Pawan Kumar Yadav
S/o Arjun Yadav, aged 21 years,
Residing at No.173, 3rd Main,
HAL. 2nd Phase, Old
Thippasandra, Bangalore.
3. Binod Kumar S/o Yashwar Yadav
Residing at No.173, 3rd Main,
HAL. 2nd Phase, Old
Thippasandra, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s. 51(a) and 63 of Copyright Act,
of
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not
guilty.
2 C.C.No.11010/2013
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 11-1-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Indranagar Police Station,
Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused
Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s. 52(a) and 63 of
Copyright Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
14-12-2011 at 1-00 p.m., in front of M.K.Retail shopping mall
on footpath the accused Nos.2 and 3 as per the instruction of
accused No.1 were selling pirated CDs and DVDs of different
language films over which member companies of V4U
copyright protection had copyright without there being any
authorization or written consent from the copyright holder and
further the accused persons were selling the said same, as if
the said CDs and DVDs are supplied by the copyright holder
companies and thereby cheated the copyright holder
companies as well as the general public and committed
aforesaid offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are on bail. On receipt of
charge sheet copies, this court took cognizance of the offences
and furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the
accused Nos.1 to 3. After hearing on charges, this court
framed the charge for the offences punishable U/s.63 of
3 C.C.No.11010/2013
Copyright Act, 1957 and section 420 of IPC and read over to
accused Nos.1 to 3 in the languages known to them, they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to prove the guilt against accused
Nos.1 to 3 have examined three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and
got marked four documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and also
marked one material object as per M.O.1.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused Nos.1 to 3
as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons
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 to prove guilt against accused Nos.1
to 3 has examined four witnesses. P.W.1 D.Kumar is the
police inspector who conducted the raid. P.W.2 Anil Kumar is
the head constable who said to have participated in the raid.
P.W.3 M.N.Reddy is the independent seizure mahazar witness.
inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the prosecution has
not examined another independent seizure mahazar witness
who gave opinion regarding seized DVDs and Investigating
Officer who filed charge sheet.
4 C.C.No.11010/2013
8. I have heard both counsels and perused evidence on
record.
9. The testimony of P.W.1-D.Kumar indicating that on
14-12-2011 when he, C.W.4 and C.W.5 his police staff were on
patrolling duty at 1-00 p.m., he received credible information
regarding selling of pirated DVDs in front of M.K.Retail shop
on footpath at CMH Road. Immediately he called panchas to
the spot and visited said place and found six hundred and
four Video CDs. He enquired said persons about any license
they pleaded no, he seized 145 CDs and DVDs of of Hindi
language films, two hundred and eighty CDs and English
language films, hundred and fifteen CDs and DVD of Tamil
language films, fifty four CDs and DVDs of Telugu language
films, fifteen CDs and DVDs of Malayalam language films in all
he seized 304 CDs and DVDs by preparing the seizure
mahazar. He took the custody of said two persons prepared
self-complaint registered the case and reported to the seizer to
the court under P.F.No.140/2011. He arrested the accused
persons and sent to the judicial custody. Since accused No.1
was absconded he handed over case papers to C.W.9 for
further investigation.
10. The testimony of P.W.1 Corroborated by P.W.2 Anil
Kumar the head constable. His testimony indicating that on
14-11-2012 when he, C.W.4 along with C.W.1 were on
patrolling duty, at 1-00 p.m., C.W.1 the PSI of his Police
Station received credible information regarding selling of
5 C.C.No.11010/2013
pirated DVDs in front of M.K.Retail shop on CMH road. C.W.1
took them to the said spot called
C.Ws.2 and 3 as panchas and visited the said place and found
two persons were selling the DVDs. They took the custody of
accused persons their names as Vinod and Pawan. C.W.1 has
verified the same DVDs the said DVDs are did not contain logo
maximum retail price name of the company. C.W.1 enquired
regarding any bill, on enquiry the said bill two persons stated
that one Lathif their owner is supplied the said DVDs and they
are selling the same. Accordingly, C.W.1 has seized 145
Hindin language, 280 English language, 115 tamil language,
54 Telugu and 15 Malayalam language films in all 609 DVDs.
C.W.1 has seized the same by preparing the seizure mahazar.
Admittedly, P.W.2 is not signed the seizure mahazar. As
stated above, 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 but
nothing worth is elicited from him.
11. In a case like this, the offences has to be proved in a
circumstantial evidence by way of proving the seizure mahazar
of seized CDs and DVDs beyond all reasonable doubt. Further
the prosecution has to prove that the seized CDs and DVDs
are pirated which did not contain necessary particulars as
required under section 52(A) of the Copyright Act and further
the accused persons by infringing the copyright of the different
companies were selling the same to the general public.
6 C.C.No.11010/2013
Further the prosecution has to prove that some company had
copyright over different language films of seized CDs and
DVDs. As stated above, the prosecution to prove seizure
mahazar has examined P.Ws.1 and 2. As stated above, P.W.1
and 2 deposed regarding seizer of CDs and DVDs. Absolutely,
nothing worth is elicited from them to say that they have
animosity against accused persons and accordingly by crating
DVDs and CDs have foisted false case. Absolutely I have no
reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2. Even
though P.W.3 the independent seizure mahazar witness has
turned hostile and the prosecution has not examined another
independent seizure mahazar witness, I have no reason to
disbelieve the testimony f of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, I am of
the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully
proved the seizure mahazar of CDs and DVDs beyond all
reasonable doubt.
12. It appears, during the course of investigation the
Investigating Officer has obtained report regarding seized CDs
and DVDs from one R.Gajendra field officer C.W.8 herein.
Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the prosecution has
not examined said C.W.8. Therefore the prosecution has failed
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.
7 C.C.No.11010/2013
13. It appears, the Investigating Officer during the course
of investigation has not collected any copyright certificate of
any holder who were different language films of seized CDs
and DVDs. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that
accused persons have infringed the copyright of some
companies of different language films of CDs and DVDs. Mere
proving of seizure mahazar is not sufficient to connect the
accused persons unless the prosecution proves that the seized
CDs and DVDs are pirated and did not contain necessary
particulars as required under section 52 (A) of Copyright Act
and some company had copyright over different language films
seized CDs and DVDs. In the instant case the prosecution
failed to prove that the seized CDs and DVDs are pirated and
did not contain necessary particulars as required under
section 52(A) of the copyright act and some company are
persons had copyright over different language films of seized
CDs and DVDs. Therefore looking from any angel, I am of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove
guilt against accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly accused Nos.1 to 3 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 to 3 for the offences under section 63 of Copyright Act and Section 420 of IPC.
8 C.C.No.11010/2013Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 3 has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
M.O.1 is being worthless shall be destroyed 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 11th day of January 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 D.Kumar P.W.2 Anil Kumar P.W.3 M.N.Reddy
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Panchaname
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.2(a) Signature
Ex.P.2(b) Signature
Ex.P.3 Report
Ex.P.3(a) Signature
Ex.P.4 Statement
9 C.C.No.11010/2013
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
M.O.1 seized DVDs LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND
MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.10 C.C.No.11010/2013
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under section 63 of Copyright Act and Section 420 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 3 have been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
M.O.1 is being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.