Bangalore District Court
Who Conducted The Raid. It Appears ... vs No.2 Is on 17 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 17th 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 35554/2011
2.Date of Offence 18/7/2011
3.Complainant State by Chickpet Police Station
4.Accused 1. Sajjan Raj Jain @ Sanjay
S/o. Ribak Chand, Aged 38 Years,
No.36/11, 1st Main, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore-18.
2. Ashok Kumar Kivesara S/o. Ribak
Chand, Aged 46 Years, No. 210,
3 Floor, Gowri Apartment,
rd
2nd Main, Chamrajpet, Bangalore-18.
5. Offences complained U/s.51(1)(B) and 63 of Copyright
of Act, 1957 and 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 17-3-2015
2 C.C.No.35554/2011.
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Chickpet Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused
Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.51(1)(B) and 63 of
Copyright Act, 1957 and Sec.420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of prosecution case are that on 18-7-
2011 within the limits of Chickpet Police station, A1 being the
owner of at M/s.Jayapadme shop, situated in No.43/11,
Ground floor, K.V.R.Market, Sultanpet, and A2 being the
brother of A1 were in possession and selling of counterfeit T-
shirts and Track pants in the name of Adidas, Reebok, Levis,
Puma, Tommy Hillfiger, Armani, Pepe Jeans, Polo, Nike and
other companies without obtaining any authorisation or
written consent from the copyright holder and were selling the
same as if the said cloths are manufactured by copyright
holder company and there by cheated the general public as
well as the copyright holder company and committed aforesaid
offences.
3. 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 offences punishable under Sec.63 of Copyright
3 C.C.No.35554/2011.
Act, 1957 and Sec.420 of IPC., and questioned the accused
regarding the charge made against them, they denied the
charge and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case got
examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked four
documents at Exs.P1 to P4 and also marked one material
object as per MO.1. Since C.Ws.1 to 10 and 11 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 persons
as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., 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 the guilt against the accused
Nos.1 and 2 has examined only one witness by name
M.Nagaraj the PSI who conducted the raid. Inspite of giving
sufficient opportunities the prosecution has not examined
other witnesses on record.
8. The testimony of P.W.1 indicating that on 18-7-2011 the
ACP of Chickpet Police Station has directed him to conduct
4 C.C.No.35554/2011.
raid pertaining to selling of duplicate T-Shirt and Track pants
in the name of Adidas and Rebok Company in Jayapadme
shop No.43, at Chickpet. Accordingly, he and his staff i.e.,
C.Ws.6 to 10 conducted search on their own and thereafter
visited near said shop. He called two persons and requested
them to stand as panchas. They agreed for the same.
Thereafter, he and his staff along with complainant and
panchas conducted the raid in Jayapadme shops No.43/11 at
Chickpet. The complainant has identified 50 T-Shirts, 500
Track Pants in the name of Adidas Company, 8 T-Shirts in the
name of Rebok Company, 150 T-Shirts of in the name of
Tommy Hilfigure, 150 T-Shirts in the name of Harmony
Company, 120 T-Shirts in the name of levis Company, 555 T-
Shirts in the name of Pep Jeans Company, 30 T-shirts and 10
Track pants in the name of Puma Company, 250 Jersy in the
name of Polo Company, 110 T-shirts in the name of Polo
Company, 40 T-shirts in the name of Abitkani Titek Company,
and 20 Track pants in the name of Niki Company. He took
two T-shirts and track pants in the name of each company as
samples sealed the same by giving MM seal and seized all T-
shirts and track pants by preparing the seizure Mahazar.
Thereafter, he brought the accused persons and seized T-
shirts and Track pants to the Chickpet Police station and
given report. PW 1 has identified the seized T-shirts and track
pants as M.O.1, the copy of the report given to the C.W.4 as
per Ex.P.3 and Complaint as per Ex.P.4.
5 C.C.No.35554/2011.
9. As stated above, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. In a case like this, the offences has to be
proved in a circumstantial evidence by way of proving the
seizure mahazar of seized T-shirts and track pants. Further,
the prosecution has to prove that the seized T-shirts and track
pants and other cloths are duplicated in the name of above
referred companies. Further, the prosecution has to prove that
the said EIPR Company had copyright and trade mark over the
above named brands. Further, the prosecution has to prove
that the accused No.2 is the owner of M/s.Jayapadme shop
No.43, Ground Floor, K.V.R. Market, Chickpet Cross,
Sulthanpet, Bangalore and A1 is the brother of A2.
10. As stated above, the prosecution to prove the seizure
mahazar has examined only one witness M.Nagaraju the
complainant who conducted the raid. It appears though PW 1
has deposed regarding seizure mahazar, he has not explained
the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.2. Admittedly, PW 1 is the
Police Sub Inspector who is always interest in out come of his
investigation and also prosecution. Therefore, it is not safe to
rely upon the sole testimony of PW.1. In my opinion, in order
to believe the testimony of PW.1 corroboration is necessary.
As stated above, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record to corroborate the testimony of P.W.1 in
the matter of seizure mahazar. Therefore, the prosecution has
6 C.C.No.35554/2011.
failed to prove the seizure mahazar beyond all reasonable
doubt.
11. Further, the prosecution has not examined any
witnesses and has not marked any documents to prove that the
seized products are spurious in the name of Adidas, Reebok, Levis,
Puma, Abitkani Titek, Armony. Further, the prosecution has not
examined any witnesses and has not got marked any documents
to prove that EIPR Company had copyright over the above named
products or Trade Mark over the same. Further, the prosecutin
has not marked any documents to show that the accused No.2 is
the owner of M/s. Jayapadme shop where the alleged raid was
conducted. Therefore looking from any angle and having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available
on record, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence on
record is insufficient to come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has proved 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 punishable under Section 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
7 C.C.No.35554/2011.Hence, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. M.O.1 seized cloths are confiscated to Government. Office to remove the labels in the name of Adidas, Reebok, Levis and other names of companies from the said M.O.1 before putting it for auction.
(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 17th day of March 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 M. Nagaraj LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Order of ACP,
Ex.P2 Mahazar of PW 1
Ex.P2(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P3 Report,
Ex.P3(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.4 Complaint;
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.1
8 C.C.No.35554/2011.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
M.O.1 T-Shirt LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. 9 C.C.No.35554/2011. Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. M.O.1 seized cloths are confiscated to Government. Office to remove the labels in the name of Adidas, Reebok, Levis and other names of companies from the said M.O.1 before putting it for auction.
IX ADDL.C.M.M.