Bangalore District Court
State By Halsurgate Police vs Persons. Hence on 2 January, 2020
1 CC No.7801/18
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2020
Present : Sri.Prakash Channappa Kurubett
B.Sc., LL.B.(Spl).,
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 7801/2018
2.Date of 17.02.2017
offence
3.Complainant State by Halsurgate Police
Station
4.Accused 1.Udesh S/o.Himtaram
Aged about 24 years,
2.Mangal Purohit S/o.Pratap.G
Aged about 32 years,
Both R/No.21, Ganigerpet,
N.T.Pet, Bengaluru.
5. Offences U/Sec. 51(B) & 63 of Copy Right
complained of Act.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 & 2 pleaded not
guilty.
2 CC No.7801/18
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 & 2 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 02/01/2020.
REASONS
The Police Sub-Inspector of Halsurgate Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused persons
for the offences punishable U/Sec.51(B) and 63 of Copy Right Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 17/02/2017 at
about 4.00 pm, at shop No.12 Sky Technologies, 1 st floor, MSN
Lane, 3rd Cross, S.P. Road, Halsurgate, Bengaluru, within the limits
of Halsurgate Police Station, accused persons were selling the
duplicate laptop batteries, panel and adopters of H.P.Company to
the public, without obtaining the valid permission/license from the
copyright owner and infringed the right of the copyright of the said
company. Hence, CW.1- Harish Kumar, Investigation Officer, EIPR
(India) Private Limited, lodged first information. The Station House
3 CC No.7801/18
Officer registered a case in Cr.No.58/2017 for the offences
punishable U/Sec.63 of Copy Right Act and submitted First
Information Report to this Court. After investigation, Sub-Inspector
of Halsurgate Police Station filed charge sheet for the said offence
punishable U/Sec.51(B) and 63 of Copy Right Act against the
accused persons. Hence, they have committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused persons are on bail. On receipt of charge sheet, this
court took the cognizance of the alleged offences and furnished
copy of the prosecution papers to the accused. After hearing on
charge, this Court has framed charge for the offences punishable
U/Sec. 51(B) and 63 of Copy Right Act for which accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined only
one witness as PW.1, and documents got marked at Ex.P.1, and
closed the side of the prosecution evidence, and Statements
4 CC No.7801/18
u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. are recorded, read over and explained in the
vernacular language of the accused, wherein accused have denied
the incriminating circumstances appeared against them as false
and did not choose to lead defence evidence. Hence, defence
evidence is closed. As such, the matter was posted for arguments.
5. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
6. The PW.1 - Venkappa Pandappa Hugar - Head Constable
deposed that on 17/12/2017 at about 3.00 pm, Police Inspector -
Anand Kumar received information that the accused persons were
selling the duplicate spare parts of Laptop and adopters of
H.P.Company, at Sky Technologies, S.P.Road, and they gone to the
said shop, and the instructions of PI gone to the said spot , and
apprehended the accused persons along with materials and
produced before the Investigating Officer. He has been cross-
examined by the accused counsel. But from his mouth nothing
favouring the prosecution case.
5 CC No.7801/18
7. The evidence of PW.1 clearly establishes that the alleged seized
materials have not been packed, sealed and pasted with a slip
having the signatures of panch witnesses and Investigating officer.
Hence, there is no clear, cogent and reliable evidence to prove the
guilt of accused as alleged by the prosecution case.
8. The other witnesses, i.e. CW.1 to CW.5 and CW.7 did not turn
up in spite of taking coercive steps and they were dropped by
rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP. The above evidence creates
reasonable doubt in the prosecution. The benefit of doubt always
goes to accused. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. Consequently, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 51(B) and 63 of Copy Right Act. 6 CC No.7801/18
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 2nd day of January, 2020.) (P.C.KURUBETT) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1: V.H.Hugar. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Panchanama
Ex.P1(a): Signature of PW.1.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL 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. Bangalore.