Bangalore District Court
Francis Paul vs Fizulla on 31 July, 2025
KABC030116532023
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.
PRESENT: Sri.Vinod Balnaik
B.A. LL.B (Spl.)
IX Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2025
C.C.No.7030/2023
COMPLAINANT:-
The State of Karnataka,
through PSI of Commercial Street Police Station.
(By Asst. Public Prosecutor)
// Versus //
ACCUSED:-
Fizulla @ Owner of Venus Foot Wear,
S/o Late.S.Abdul Rahim,,
Age 39 Years,
R/at No.71A, A Street, Noha Street,
Shivajinagara,
Bengaluru City.
(By Sri.K.R.U. Advocate )
2
C.C.No.7030/2023
1. Date of Commencement of : 19.12.2022
Offence.
2. Date of Report of Offence : 23.12.2022
3. Name of Complainant : Mr.Francis Paul
4. Offences Complained U/sec. : 51(1) (b), 63 of Copy Right
Act and 420 of IPC.
5. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found
not guilty.
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by the PSI of Commercial Street Police Station, Bengaluru against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 51(1) (b), 63 of Copy Right Act and 420 of IPC.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 23.12.2022 at about 3.40 pm., within the limits of Commercial Street Police Station, situated at Shop No.196/199, Venus Foot Wear, Veera Pillai Street, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, CW.1 got credible information that, the accused was selling spurious/counterfeit products of LOUISE VUITTON MALLETIER Company without obtaining any permission of company authority and cheated to the company and public and thus the accused has 3 C.C.No.7030/2023 committed the offences punishable U/Sec. 51(1) (b), 63 of Copy Right Act and 420 of IPC.
03. After filing of charge sheet, this court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec. 51(1) (b), 63 of Copy Right Act and 420 of IPC and issued summons to the accused. Accordingly the accused appeared before the court through his counsel and released on bail. Later on, charge sheet copies and prosecution papers were furnished to the accused under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
04. Heard both side on framing of charge, perused the prosecution papers. As there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against the accused, the charges has been framed for the offence punishable U/Sec.51(1) (b), 63 of Copy Right Act and 420 of IPC and the same was read over to him, but he denied the contents of charge and claimed for trial. Hence, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
05. In furtherance of the charges leveled against the accused, the following points are arisen for my consideration.
POINTS
01. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 23.12.2022 at about 3.40 pm., within the limits of Commercial Street Police Station, situated at 4 C.C.No.7030/2023 Shop No.196/199, Venus Foot Wear, Veera Pillai Street, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, CW.1 got credible information that, the accused persons were selling spurious/counterfeit products of LOUISE VUITTON MALLETIER Company without obtaining any permission of company authority and cheated to the company and public and thus the accused persons have committed the offences punishable U/Sec. 51(1)(B), 63 of Copy Right Act and 420 of IPC. ?
02. What order or sentence?
06. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the witnesses i.e., CW.5 as PW.1, CW.1 as PW.2, CW.6 as PW.3 and CW.2 as PW.4 and CW.3 & 4 are given up and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and also marked MO.1.
07. After completion of evidence of prosecution, the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution is read over to the accused and statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating circumstances as false and not chosen to lead his side defence evidence.
08. Heard the arguments. My findings on the above said points are as follows:-
5
C.C.No.7030/2023 Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
09. Point No.1: To prove the case, the prosecution has examined CW.5 as PW.1 who is official witness and CW.6 is examined as PW.3 who is Investigating Officer. PW.1 accompanied with PW.3 to conduct raid and given statement before him. PW.3 has deposed about receiving of complaint, registering crime and submitting of FIR, he went to the spot along with PW.1 and seized 20 counterfeit/spurious shoes of LOUISE VUITTON MALLETIER Company by conducting of Panchanama, arresting of accused, recording of his voluntary statement, received genuineness report and deposed about filing of charge sheet against accused. PW.1 has assisted to PW.3 and given statement before him. Thereby, they supported the case of prosecution and discharging of their official duties.
10. The prosecution has examined CW.1 as PW.2, who is the authorized officer of EIPR Pvt. limited 6 C.C.No.7030/2023 Company/ GPA holder and lodged the complaint and identified the seized shoes from the accused shop i.e., Veenus Footware Shop as they are duplicate LOUISE VUITTON MALLETIER Company shoes. In his evidence, he has deposed that, he has lodged the complaint to the police about the sale of duplicate LOUISE VUITTON MALLETIER Company shoes within the limits of Commercial Street Police Station. He has also deposed about the raid conducted by the police and has deposed that, they seized the 20 pair counterfeit/ spurious LV company shoes and police have conducted the panchanama in his presence. Further, he stated that, he submitted company documents before CW.6 and he received letter from CW.6 and he submitted genuineness certificate through e-mail to CW.6. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution.
11. Further CW.2 is examined as PW.4, who being the panch witness has deposed that, in his presence police have conducted raid in the said shop of accused and seized the duplicate shoes of LOUISE 7 C.C.No.7030/2023 VUITTON MALLETIER Company. He identified his signature in the Panchaname and he has given statement before the police. Thereby, he supported the case of the prosecution.
12. It is pertinent to note here that, PW.3 being the Investigation Officer in his cross examination has deposed that, "... ಅಮಾನತ್ತುಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡ ಮುದ್ದೆ ಮಾಲುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಪಂಚರ ಹಾಗೂ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಗಳ ಮತ್ತು ಆರೋಪಿತನ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದು ಚೀಟಿಯನ್ನು ಅಂಟಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ.....", but PW.1 being the official staff and PW.2 being the Manager and complainant of company have in their respective cross examination have categorically deposed that, "... ಜಪ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡ ಮಾಲುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಪಂಚರು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ...." and "... ಜಪ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ಮಾಲುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಪೋಲೀಸರು ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ...." which creates doubt about the MO.1. Further, PW.3 in his cross examination has deposed that, "... ಕಂಪನಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕವಾಗಿ ತೆಗೆದ ಮುದ್ದೆ ಮಾಲನ್ನು ಸ್ಯಾಂಪಲ್ಗಾಗಿ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ....". Whereas PW.2 in his cross examination stated that, "... ನಿಪಿ.3 ರ ಜೊತೆ ಸ್ಯಾಂಪಲ್ ಪೀಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಕಳುಹಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟರು...." Further, deposed that, "... ನೀವು ಗುರುತಿಸಿರುವ ಶೂ ಆ ದಿನ ಮಾದರಿಗಾಗಿ ತೆಗೆದಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ಪೋಲೀಸರ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ...." which itself creates doubt about the case 8 C.C.No.7030/2023 of prosecution. Further, it is significant to note here that, the said seized alleged counterfeit/ spurious LOUISE VUITTON MALLETIER shoes will not come under the purview of section 13 of Copy Right Act. Section 13(1) of Copy Right Act reads as under;
"Section 13. Works in which copyright subsists.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works, that is to say,--
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) cinematograph films; and
(c) 1[sound recording]".
Such being so, this court has relied upon the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, at Madras passed in Crl. OP.No.6357/2021 and Crl.M.P.No.4248 and 4249/2021, wherein para No.7, it is held that;
" para No.7:- ..... it is clear that, unless the infringement relates to original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, Cinematograph films and sound recordings, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. In the instant case, there are no such allegations, hence, the offences punishable U/Sec. 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 is not made. ....".9
C.C.No.7030/2023 Such being so, for the reasons, provision and decision discussed supra, this court cannot come to conclusion that, the accused has committed the alleged offences. Hence, the doubt arises in the mind of the Court regarding the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. Thus, there are no any incriminating materials to establish the alleged offence leveled against the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered the Point No.1 in the negative.
13. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded to the above points, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising powers conferred U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 51(1) (b), 63 of Copy Right Act and 420 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall continue in force for a period of 6 months.
The accused is set at liberty. 10
C.C.No.7030/2023 The items reported in PF No.79/2022 being shoes are ordered to be destroyed as worthless 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 31st day of July 2025.) (Sri. Vinod Balnaik.) IX Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW-1 : Suresh Guddagappa PW-2 : Francis Paul PW-3 : Chethan.S.G. PW-4 : Babu.R
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
--------NIL----------- List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Panchaname
11
C.C.No.7030/2023
Ex.P.3 : Report
Ex.P.4 : FIR
Ex.P.5 : Notice
Ex.P.6 : Requisition
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:-
--------NIL--------
Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 : Shoes
IX ADDL.C.J.M.
Bengaluru City.
12
C.C.No.7030/2023
31.07.2025
Judgment
Judgment pronounced in the open court (Vide separate order) ORDER By exercising powers conferred U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 51(1) (b), 63 of Copy Right Act and 420 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall continue in force for a period of 6 months.
The accused is set at liberty. The items reported in PF No.79/2022 being shoes are ordered to be destroyed as worthless after appeal period is over.
13 C.C.No.7030/2023 IX ADDL.C.J.M. Bengaluru.