Delhi District Court
State vs Ajay Kumar on 11 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANSI MALIK
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-02
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case No. 298880/2016
FIR No.53/2008
PS- Bara Hindu Rao
State Vs. Ajay Kumar
U/s 63 Copyright Act
JUDGMENT
(a) Case No. 298880/16
(b) Date of offence 27.05.2008
(c) Complainant Sh. Dharampal
S/o Sh. Khushi Ram,
R/o H. No.372, Durga Vihar,
Phase-2, Deendarpur, Najafgarh,
Delhi.
(d) Accused Ajay Kumar
S/o Sh. Omprakash,
R/o H.No. 447, Gali no.5, Rampura,
Chander Quarter, Delhi.
(e) Offence U/s 63 Copyright Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not Guilty
(g) Final Order Acquittal
(h) Date of Institution 23.07.2008
(I) Date when judgment was 11.04.2026
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 11.05.2026
BRIEF FACTS
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 27.05.2008 at about 3:00 PM, at G-12, Sri Ram Palace Market, Teliwada Chowk, MANSI MALIK FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 1 of 22 Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:15:44 +0530 Delhi, accused Ajay Kumar was found in possession of a huge quantity of spurious products of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. as detailed in seizure memo X which the accused was possessing for purpose of selling the same and thus he infringed copyright of the complainant company M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. and is thus alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 63 Copyright Act, 1957.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charge of offence u/s 63 Copyright Act was framed against accused Ajay Kumar and the charge was duly explained to him in vernacular to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 15.01.2010. Thus, the matter was put to trial.
3. Vide separate statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted proceedings u/s 64 Copyright Act pertaining to the present case which is Ex.A-1 and FIR No. 53/2008 which is Ex.A-2.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses.
a) PW-1/Ct. Yashpal deposed that on 28.05.2008, he was posted as Constable at DIU Cell, North District and on that day, he joined the investigation of the present case along with SI Narender Kumar. PW-1 further stated that on the same day, he, along with SI Narender Kumar, HC Jai Singh, and the accused Ajay Kumar, went to Sadar Bazar in search of co-accused Pradeep Jain and Pramod Gupta. PW-1 further FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 2 of 22 MANSI MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:15:55 +0530 deposed that when they reached the shop of Pradeep, the shop was found closed and no clue regarding Pradeep Gupta could be found, and therefore, they could not be apprehended. PW-1 further deposed that the accused was produced before Tis Hazari Court and PC remand was obtained. PW-1 further deposed that he got the accused Ajay Kumar medically examined at HRH Hospital and the accused was again taken to Teliwara in search of Pradeep and Pramod, but they could not be apprehended and he further stated that the accused was kept in lockup and the IO recorded his statement. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
b) PW-2/ASI Jai Singh deposed that on 27.05.2008 he was posted as HC at DIU Cell, North District and on that day, he joined the investigation of the present case along with SI Narender Khatri. He further stated that on the same day, he along with SI Narender Khatri and the complainant Sh. Dharampal of M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd., as well as one Rakesh Kumar Gupta went to Shop No. 5411/2, New Market, Sadar Bazar, where the accused Ajay Kumar met them and introduced himself as the owner of the shop. PW-2 further deposed that the shop of the accused was searched in the presence of the complainant, but no spurious item was recovered from there and that they all, alongwith the complainant and the accused, went to the godown at G-12, Sri Ram Palace, Teliwara, where the godown was raided and, on the identification of the complainant, total 15 spurious items consisting of Ponds powder, Ayurvedic Himani Navrattan Oil, Ujala Supreme, Him Gange Ayurvedic Oil, Lakme Radiance Compact, Fair & Lovely, etc., were recovered.
PW-2 further deposed that all these items were checked by Dharampal MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 3 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:16:04 +0530 and Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who found all the products to be spurious/duplicate and from all the recovered products, the IO took one piece as a sample from each product, and the samples were kept in a pulanda sealed with the seal of MPC. Serial Nos. S1 to S15 were given to them and they were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/A and the remaining case property was kept in gunny bags, sealed with the same seal, and were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. PW-2 further deposed that thereafter the IO prepared a rukka on the complaint of Dharampal and handed it over to Ct. Hemant Kumar for registration of the case who took the rukka to PS B.H. Rao and got the case registered vide FIR No. 53/08. PW-2 further deposed that he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to the IO and the IO prepared the site plan and arrested the accused and the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide memo Ex. PW2/C and his statement was recorded as well. PW-2 further deposed that the case property was deposited in the malkhana of PS B.H. Rao and the accused was kept in lockup. He further deposed that on 28.05.2008, he again joined the investigation of the case, and on that day the accused Ajay Kumar was taken out from the lockup and taken to Sadar Bazar, Teliwara, for the search of co-accused Pradeep and Pramod, but despite best efforts they could not be apprehended. PW-2 further deposed that the shop of accused Pradeep was found closed and no clue regarding Pramod could be found. PW-2 further deposed that the accused was medically examined, produced before the court, and one day PC remand was obtained and on that day, Dharampal, AR of the company, also produced 13 samples of original products, which were taken into possession by the IO, kept in a pulanda, sealed with the seal of MPC, and seized vide MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 4 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:16:13 +0530 memo Ex. PW2/D and that the IO recorded his statement to this effect. PW-2 correctly identified the case property i.e. 57 bags as Ex. P1 to P57(colly) and the samples, both spurious and original marked as Q1 to Q15 and Q16 to Q28 respectively. PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
c) PW-3/Sh. Dharampal deposed that in the year 2008, he was working with M/s The Protector as an Investigator and had a registered office at 197, Ram Vihar and had authority on behalf of different companies like Lakme and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. to protect their copyright violations. PW-3 further deposed that the said companies had authorized his company as well as him to act on their behalf with respect to copyright violations and to file complaints at the police station and that by virtue of the authorization of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., he filed a complaint with DCP (North) for conducting a raid in the area of Sadar Bazar and the said complaint is Ex. PW3/A. PW-3 further deposed that his authorization on behalf of M/s The Protector to conduct the raid, as well as that of Mr. Rajwant Singh, are on record as Ex. PW3/B to Ex. PW3/D. PW-3 further deposed that he had also brought the certificate regarding authorization of M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. in favour of the proprietor of his firm, namely Mr. Suresh Sati and the authority letter is Ex. PW3/E, the extract of resolution in favour of Manish Tiwari is Ex. PW3/F (OSR), the power of attorney in favour of Manish Tiwari is Ex. PW3/G (OSR), the copyright registration certificates of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. are Ex. PW3/H to Ex. PW3/J (OSR), the deed of assignment is Ex. PW3/K (colly) (OSR), and another document of assignment of copyright is Ex. PW3/L (colly) (OSR) and these were not MANSI MALIK FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 5 of 22 Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:16:22 +0530 disputed by the Ld. Defence Counsel. PW-3 further deposed that on his complaint, a raiding party was constituted comprising himself, SI Narender Khatra, HC Jai Singh, Ct. Himmat, and one Rakesh Kumar Gupta and that the raiding party reached at Shop No. 5411/2, New Market, Sadar Bazar, where accused Ajay Kumar was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW3/M and Ex. PW3/N. PW-3 further deposed that spurious products were recovered from the possession of the accused, which were seized by the police vide seizure memos Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B and further stated that he handed over the original samples to the police, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D. PW-3 correctly identified the case property as Ex.P1 to Ex.P57 and also correctly identified all the samples drawn from spurious products marked as Q1 to Q15, and the original samples marked as Q16 to Q28. Witness correctly identified the accused present in court. PW-3 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
d) PW-4/Sh. Rakesh Kumar deposed that in the year 2008, he was working as Marketing Executive in G.K. Burman Harbal India Pvt. Ltd. and had been authorized by Sh. Gautam Burman, Director of G.K. Burman Harbal India Pvt. Ltd. regarding infringement and counterfeiting of the products and registered copyright/trademark/design of the company vide authority letter marked X. PW-4 further deposed that he could identify the signatures of Gautam Burman as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing during the ordinary course of his duty. PW-4 further deposed that on 15.07.2008, he went to the IPR Cell regarding conducting of raid and the IO constituted one raiding party MANSI consisting of himself and other police officials and went to one shop MALIK Digitally signed FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 6 of 22 by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:16:31 +0530 whose number, bazar, location he did not remember and that where one person whose name was later on revealed as Ajay Kumar was found sitting. PW-4 further deposed that the raid of the aforesaid shop was conducted and also of his godown, from where the counterfeit product of their company i.e. Himgange Ayurvedic Oil in the packing of 100 ml and 200 ml alongwith other counterfeit articles of different companies were recovered and on checking the same, he found all the aforesaid articles to be counterfeit and duplicate and all those recovered articles were put in different gunny bags and were seized vide seizure memo aEx.PW2/B and that he had not given the samples to the IO at the time of investigation. PW-4 again said that he had given samples of original Himgange Ayurvedic Oil in 100ml and 200ml packing to the IO which was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/D and the accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/M and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/N. PW-4 further deposed that they returned to the PS alongwith accused and the seized articles and that the accused was lodged in the lock-up and seized articles were deposited in the Malkhana and IO recorded his statement. As the case property had already been deposited with District nazir, the photographs of the case property were exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly), the copy of Panchnama of the case property and the copy of Road Certificate bearing No. 51/21/15 dated 05.12.2015 was Mark X (Colly). Witness correctly identified accused Ajay Kumar present in the court. PW-4 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
e) PW-5/Sh. Manish Goel deposed that he resides at E- Tagore Park, Model Town, New Delhi with his family and has a shop situated at MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 7 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:16:41 +0530 G-12, Sri Ram Palace, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and the same is rented to one Sh. Ram Aggarwal and that he also gave the receipt in the name of Sh. Ram Aggarwal against the rent of the said shop. PW-5 deposed that he knows accused Ajay Kumar as he is brother of Sh. Ram Aggarwal and that the IO recorded his statement. PW-5 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
f) PW-6/Bhupesh Kumar Tiwari deposed that he brought the summoned record i.e. extract of Register of Copy Rights for registration No. A-67884/2004 for the project "Himani Navratan Tel" and the certified copy of the same is Ex.PW6/A. PW-6 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
g) PW-7/Rajwant Singh deposed that he resides at J-247, Old Seemapuri, Shahdara, Delhi-95 with his family and further deposed that the authority letter in his favour issued by The Protector is Ex.PW7/A. PW-7 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
h) PW-8/Inspector Narender Khatri deposed that on 27.05.2008 he was posted as SI with DIU, North and on that day the present case was marked to him for investigation. PW-8 further deposed that on that day he alongwith complainant, HC Jai Singh and Ct. Hemant went to Teliwara, Shri Ram Market and that the complainant pointed out the shop where they met with accused Ajay Kumar and that the accused was informed about the purpose of visit and then raid was conducted. PW-8 further deposed that during the raid spurious articles of the complainant company were not found in the shop of accused, however spurious MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 8 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:16:48 +0530 articles were recovered from the godown of the accused and that he seized the spurious articles vide seizure memos Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B and also prepared rukka Ex. PW-8/A and handed over the same to Ct. Hemant for registration of FIR. PW-8 further deposed that after sometime Ct. Hemant returned to spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. PW-8 further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW-8/B and accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-3/M and Ex. PW-3/N. PW-8 further deposed that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded which is Ex. PW-2/C and he returned to P.S. and deposited the case property in the malkhana. PW-8 further deposed that on next day, he seized the original samples vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-2/D and the proceedings u/s 64 of Copyright Act was conducted. PW-8 further deposed that during investigation original samples and spurious articles were sent to FSL and he recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the draft charge-sheet and handed over the same to Reader of ACP, DIU, North as he was transferred from DIU, North. Witness correctly identified the accused present in the court. PW-8 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
i) PW-9/Dr. C.P. Singh deposed that on 27.08.2008, 28 sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL, Rohini, Delhi and the seals on the parcels were intact and tallied with the specimen seal provided with the forwarding letter. PW-9 further deposed that the parcels were found sealed with the seal of 'MPC' and that all the parcels were opened and items found in the parcels were examined in the laboratory. PW-9 further deposed that he had given his detailed report dated 30.09.2008 running MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 9 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:16:54 +0530 into 6 pages as Ex. PW9/A and that as per his report, the samples were different and adapted (imitated) with the original samples. PW-9 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
j) PW-10/SI Nidhi Malik deposed that in November 2023 she was posted as a SI at PS DIU North and during trial of the present case on the direction of the ACP concerned DIU North, she had filed the FSL report of the present before the court through supplementary charge sheet. PW-10 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
k) PW-11/ASI Hemant Kumar deposed that on 23.05.2008, he was posted as Ct. at DIU, North District and on that day, IO/SI Narender Khatri joined him in the investigation and they went to the shop of the accused but the spurious articles were not recovered from there and thereafter the godown of the accused was raided and the spurious articles were recovered. PW-11 further deposed that IO seized the spurious articles and took it into his possession and prepared a tehrir and handed over to him for registration of FIR. PW-11 deposed that he went to the PS and got the FIR registered and returned and handed over the original tehrir and copy of FIR to the IO and that the IO arrested the accused. PW-11 further deposed that after the proceedings, accused and the case property was brought to the PS and his statement was recorded by the IO. Witness correctly identified accused Ajay present in the court. PW-11 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
5. No more witnesses remained to be examined on behalf of prosecution. Accordingly, PE was closed vide order dated 30.01.2026. MANSI MALIK FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 10 of 22 Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:16:59 +0530 Statement of the accused was recorded on 11.04.2026 wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The accused opted not to lead any defence evidence and on the same day, final arguments were heard on behalf of the parties and the matter was reserved for judgment.
REASONS FOR DECISION
6. Settled proposition of criminal laws are:-
(1) Prosecution is required to prove its case on judicial file beyond all reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence.
(2) Prosecution case needs to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. (3) Burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial through out the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. (4) Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
7. Law relating to the copyright is as follows:-
S.63 of The Copyright Act- Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act- Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of-
MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 11 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:17:04 +0530
(a) the copyright in a work, or
(b) any other right conferred by this Act, [expect the right conferred by section 53A] [shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that [where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business] the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.] S.51 When Copyright infringed- Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed-
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted of of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act-
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or [(ii)permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 12 of 22 MANSI MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:17:10 +0530 no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or]
(b) when any person -
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports 2[***] into India, any infringing copies of the work :
3 [provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work, for the private and domestic use of the importer.] Explanation- For the purpose of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an "infringing copy".
8. The position of the law in this regard has been well established in case titled as "Fateh Singh Mehta Vs. O.P Singhal, AIR 1990 Raj 8, wherein it has been held :-
"Copyright in a work is deemed to be infringed when any person, without a license granted by the owner of the copyright does anything, which is the exclusive right to do conferred by the Act upon the owner of the copyright. Where MANSI MALIK FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 13 of 22 Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:17:15 +0530 a person has copyright in a literary work, and any other person produces or reproduces the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form, he is committing an infringement of copyright".
9. It has been further held in R.G Anand V. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613 that :-
"It is not necessary that the alleged infringement should be an exact or verbatim copy of the original but its resemblances with the original in a large measure is sufficient to indicate that it is a copy."
10. As far as the test to determine infringement of the Copyright is concerned, it has been held in case titled as R.G. Anand V. M/s. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613 that :-
"One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original."
11. In the instant case, accused is facing allegations that on 27.05.2008 he was found in possession of spurious products of M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. as detailed in seizure memo Mark X for the purpose of selling the same, without the permission and authority of the MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 14 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:17:20 +0530 copyright holder i.e. the complainant company and thus he is alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 63 Copyright Act, 1957. Thus, the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the goods which were recovered from the possession of the accused for the purpose of sale were spurious in nature, which violated the copyright of the complainant company.
12. As per the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, few public persons were asked to join the investigation by the IO but they refused without disclosing their names and addresses. Law is well settled that sincere effort should be made to join the public witness. In these circumstances, the recovery itself become doubtful. Though this Court is conscious of the fact that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, but, in the present case, the mandatory requirement of joining the public witnesses has been conveniently ignored and it seems, deliberately no notice was served by the IO. This of course raises a doubt in the manner of arrest and the version of the accused that the case property is planted.
13. Further, the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the goods which were recovered from the possession of the accused were counterfeit and spurious in nature and which violated the copyright of the complainant company. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW-3/Dharampal in its evidence. PW-3/Dharampal has deposed that he was working with M/s Protector as an investigator and that Hindustan MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 15 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:17:25 +0530 Unilever Ltd. had authorized his company as well as him to act on their behalf with respect to copyright violations. He had further deposed that by virtue of the said authorization, he filed a complaint with the concerned DCP to raid in Sadar Bazar area and the complaint is Ex. PW-3/A. Further, the authorization letter issued by Sh. Suresh Sati, Proprietor of M/s Protector in favour of Sh. Dharam Pal authorizing him to act on behalf of M/s Protector is Ex. PW-3/D. The letter issued by M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. authorizing Sh. Suresh Sati, the Protector or any other person specified to conduct surveys and gather information of activities of counterfeit/spurious manufacturers and to institute police complaints against them on behalf of the company is Ex. PW-3/E. Therefore, there is no doubt that PW-3 was duly authorized to lodge complaints on behalf of M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and to depose before the Court. However, no training certificate issued by M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. has been placed on record which states that PW-3 had received training by the complainant company to differentiate between original and spurious/fake/duplicate goods. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW-3 conducted on 03.09.2015 shows that the witness has stated that he had received training to distinguish between the original and spurious products of the complainant company through Protector company but he could not produce any documents before the Court to show that he had received the said training. He also deposed that he had never received any training certificate regarding the receiving of the said training. In the absence of any such training certificate, it cannot be said that PW-2 was trained to distinguish between original and spurious/fake/duplicate goods.
MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 16 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:17:31 +0530
14. Arguendo, even if it is assumed that PW-3/Dharampal was properly trained to distinguish between original and spurious/fake/duplicate goods, a perusal of his testimony shows that he has not elaborated upon the distinction between the original products of the complainant company and the alleged counterfeit products stated to be recovered from the possession of the accused. He has merely stated in his testimony that "spurious goods were recovered from the possession of the accused which were seized by the police....." Except the said statement, no other detail has been mentioned in the testimony of PW-3 as to on which basis he identified the recovered articles to be counterfeit in nature. He has also not placed on record any document to show guidelines or SOPs in manufacturing of the original products so as to make clear distinction between the original and recovered counterfeit products.
15. The prosecution has also examined one Sh. Rakesh Kumar as PW-4 in order to prove its case. PW-4 has deposed that he was working as Marketing Executive in G.K. Burman, Herbal India Pvt. Ltd. and he was authorized by Sh. Gautam Burman, Director of G.K. Burman Herbal India Pvt. Ltd. regarding infringement and counterfeiting of products vide authority letter Mark X. A perusal of the said authority letter shows that it is only a photocopy. No reason has been given as to why the original authority letter was never produced in Court. Therefore, it can be said that the authority letter Mark X by way of which G.K. Burman Herbal India Pvt. Ltd. authorized Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta to act on behalf of the company and to sign complaints and all other related documents during search and seizure by authorities in connection with MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 17 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:17:36 +0530 spurious products has not been proved in accordance with law. It then appears that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta was not authorized to depose on behalf of G.K. Burman Herbal India Pvt. Ltd. in the case at hand rendering his testimony useless to the prosecution. Even if his testimony is read in evidence, it is seen that no training certificate has been placed on record to show he had received training to distinguish between the original and spurious products of the complainant company. Furthermore, he has also not deposed as to the distinction between the original products of the G.K. Burman Herbal India Pvt. Ltd. and the alleged counterfeit products stated to be recovered from the possession of the accused. He has merely stated in his testimony that "raid of the aforesaid shop was conducted and also of his godown, from where the counterfeit product of their company i.e. Himgange Ayurvedic Oil in the packing of 100 ml and 200 ml alongwith other counterfeit articles of different companies were recovered. On checking the same, I found all the aforesaid articles to be counterfeit and duplicate". Therefore, no detail has been mentioned in the testimony of PW-4 as to on which basis he identified the recovered articles to be counterfeit in nature. Therefore, the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 is insufficient to establish that spurious/counterfeit goods were recovered from the possession of the accused.
16. The prosecution also must establish that the articles/goods seized in the case and alleged to be counterfeit/fake/spurious products were recovered from the possession of the accused. As already mentioned above, the failure of the police officials to join any independent witnesses to the investigation already raises a doubt on the MANSI FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 18 of 22 MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:17:42 +0530 case of the prosecution. To add to that, no document has been placed on record to show that the accused was the tenant/owner of the raided premises/godown from which the goods in question were recovered. A scrutiny of testimonies of PW-2/ASI Jai Singh, PW-3/Dharampal, PW-8/Inspector Narender Khatri reveal that Shop no. 5411/2, New Market, Sadar bazar was raided but no spurious articles were recovered from the shop and thereafter they went to the godown of the accused at G-12, Sri Ram Palace, Teliwara from where 15 spurious items were recovered and were seized by the police officials. The prosecution was then bound to place on record any document to show that the accused was the owner of the said godown or had rented it or that he had absolute control/possession over it, but no such evidence has been led by the prosecution. PW-2 in his cross-examination has deposed that he does not remember whether the IO had collected the title deed or any other proof of ownership with regard to the shop and godown where the accused was found. PW-3 in his cross-examination has also deposed that during the raid and his presence, no document was ever seized to show that accused was owner/tenant/occupier in any other capacity. PW-4 has also deposed that he cannot tell whether the IO had seized any documents regarding the possession of the said shop in favour of the accused. The prosecution has also examined one Sh. Manish Goel as PW-5 to prove the possession/ownership of the premises in question. PW-5 has deposed that he rented the shop situated at G-12, Sri Ram Palace, Sadar bazar to one Sh. Ram Aggarwal and that Sh. Ajay Kumar is the brother of Sh. Ram Aggarwal. Therefore, the testimony of PW-5 also does not help the case of the prosecution as the witness has stated that he gave the shop on rent to Sh. Ram Aggarwal and not the accused. The said Sh. Ram Aggarwal FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 19 of 22 MANSI MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:17:48 +0530 has not been examined/interrogated in the present matter. Merely because the accused was the brother of Sh. Ram Aggarwal does not automatically make him liable for the business, if any, run from the said shop or for the goods stored therein. PW-8 has stated in his cross examination that he had not collected any document to show that the godown from which the recovery was effected belongs to the accused but he further deposed that the accused opened the lock of the godown with the key in his possession and informed his that the godown belongs to him. He also deposed that the neighbours also verified that the said godown belongs to the accused. However, the witness has also deposed that no photograph of the accused was taken at the time of opening of the godown and that none of the neighbors also gave a statement to the effect that the godown belongs to the accused.
17. It then appears that the police officials made no efforts to verify the ownership of the godown from where the goods in question are stated to have been recovered. PW-5 has deposed that he rented the shop situated at G-12, Sri Ram Palace, Sadar Bazar to one Sh. Ram Aggarwal and not the accused. No photograph of the accused opening the godown has also been placed on record nor statement of any neighbor has been recorded to show that the accused was in possession of the godown. When no documentary evidence was available to establish that the accused was running his business from the premises in question, the statements of the neighbors become important. However, the IO has stated that the neighbors refused to give statements in writing which is not acceptable as no written notice was also served upon them for failure to give statements. Therefore, there is nothing on record to corroborate FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 20 of 22 MANSI MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:17:53 +0530 the case of the prosecution that the accused was the owner/tenant of the raided godown. Ld. APP for the State has argued that PW-3 as well as PW-8 have stated in their testimonies that the accused had taken the raiding party to the godown and had opened the lock of the godown from the spurious goods were recovered, which shows that the accused had sole control/possession over the godown. He has also relied upon the testimony of PW-3 wherein the said witness has deposed that the lock and key of the said godown were also seized by the IO. However, no such seizure memo of the lock and key is on record nor any photographs of the accused opening the godown has been placed on record. In such circumstances, the stance of the prosecution that the accused was in possession of the godown does not seem to have much weightage.
18. A perusal of the record shows that the FSL result was filed during the course of trial which has been proved by PW-9/Dr. C.P Singh, however same in isolation is no substantive proof to prove the case. When the recovery of the articles/goods in question from the possession of the accused is itself in doubt and when no link of the accused to the raided godown could be established, the FSL result of the alleged counterfeit goods and the original products alone, cannot prove the guilt of the accused. An FSL result can only be used as corroborative evidence and in the absence of any other evidence, the same cannot prove the case of the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.
19. As a cumulative effect of the above said discussion, this Court is of considered view that a reasonable shadow of doubt is cast upon the prosecution version. Accused namely Ajay Kumar is entitled to the FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 21 of 22 MANSI MALIK Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2026.05.11 16:18:00 +0530 benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted from the charges levelled against him i.e. u/s 63 Copyright Act.
20. Requirements of Section 437A Cr. P.C be complied with. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.05.11 Announced in the open court 16:18:09 +0530 on 11th May, 2026 (Mansi Malik) Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-02 Central/THC/Delhi FIR No.53/08 State Vs Ajay Kumar PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 22 of 22