Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 63 copyright act in Judgment/State vs . Girdhari Lal Ors./ Fir ... on 4 August, 2009Matching Fragments
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) The final order : All accused Acquitted (h) The date of such order : 04.08.2009.
(i) Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-
1. Four accused namely Girdhari Lal Gupta, Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kamal Chand Jain and Ravi Kumar Jain were sent up for trial in this JUDGMENT/STATE VS. GIRDHARI LAL ORS./ FIR NO.04/93/U.S.63 of Copyright Act, 1957 & 78, 79 OF TMM ACT, `958/ ACQUITTED/04.8.2009 /Page 2 of 24 k case for offences u/s.63 Copyright Act, 1957 & u/s.78 & 79 of Trade Marks and Merchandise Act, 1958.
4. Thereafter, the adjoining premises no.213, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazaar, Delhi, of M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons was also searched where JUDGMENT/STATE VS. GIRDHARI LAL ORS./ FIR NO.04/93/U.S.63 of Copyright Act, 1957 & 78, 79 OF TMM ACT, `958/ ACQUITTED/04.8.2009 /Page 4 of 24 k Ajay Kumar Gupta s/o Girdhari Lal i.e. accused no.2 was present. On the identification of Mr. Ved Prakash Gupta, Commercial Advisor of the complainant, two cartons containing similar infringed articles and weighing about 21 KG were recovered which were identified by Ved Prakash Gupta as infringed. These articles were kept in one gunny bag and after sealing with the seal of MSG were taken into police possession. Thereafter, ruqqa was prepared and the present FIR was registered. It is further the case of prosecution that accused no.2 Ajay Kumar Gupta made disclosure statement and pursuant to his disclosure, premises no. H-13/A, Main Bazaar Road, Shakar Pur, Delhi, was raided from where 18,000 empty pouches of 'Nav Sat Khatta' which were infringed were recovered. The investigating agency claimed that accused no.3 Kamal Chand Jain was also involved in this case since he was in collusion and conspiracy with other accused and they were manufacturing these infringed articles for the purposes of sale. The investigating agency chargesheeted the four accused for the offences u/s. 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 & u/s.78 & 79 Trade Marks and Merchandise Act, 1958, and the investigating agency also chargesheet the four accused for the offence u/s. 420 r/w section 120B of IPC.
JUDGMENT/STATE VS. GIRDHARI LAL ORS./ FIR NO.04/93/U.S.63 of Copyright Act, 1957 & 78, 79 OF TMM ACT, `958/ ACQUITTED/04.8.2009 /Page 5 of 24 k
5. My Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 11.12.1997 ordered framing of charges against all the accused for the offences u/s. 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 & u/s.78 & 79 Trade Marks and Merchandise Act, 1958. All the four accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charges.
6. In support of its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses namely PW1 Ravi Prakash Gupta, PW2 Ved Prakash Gupta, PW3 Inspector Anil Kapoor, PW4 Satya Narain Sharma, PW5 SI Risal Singh, PW6 ASI Brijesh, PW7 Sanjay Sharma & PW8 H.P. Bhatt
16. During cross examination by Ld. APP, the witness also admitted his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. PW2/B, which is a seizure memo regarding the recovery from premises no. 214D, from M/s. Kaushal Trading Company, Katra, Peran, Tilak Bazaar, Delhi, where as per the case of prosecution, accused no.4 Ravi Kumar Jain was present. In the next breath, this witness stated that he signed this document in a hasty manner. When this witness admitted his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. PW2/B, the Ld. Prosecutor for the State did not suggest this witness that recovery as mentioned in Ex. PW2/B was effected in the presence of this witness or not. All that was mentioned is that as per Ex. PW2/B, certain cartons of 'Nav Sat Khatta' and one plastic bag were recovered from the said JUDGMENT/STATE VS. GIRDHARI LAL ORS./ FIR NO.04/93/U.S.63 of Copyright Act, 1957 & 78, 79 OF TMM ACT, `958/ ACQUITTED/04.8.2009 /Page 11 of 24 k premises. Again a seizure memo is a document which is prepared by the police during investigation and the contents of the document can at the most be used to contradict or confront a witness in terms of section 162 Cr.P.C. Merely by admitting signature on the said document, the facts contained therein will not stand proved unless it is specifically deposed by the witness that such a recovery was effected from the premises in his presence or which he witnessed himself. Similarly, the witness identified his signatures on Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/E, which are recovery memos of two other premises, but again this witness was never suggested nor the witness ever admitted in his testimony that any such recovery was effected in his presence. This witness in the cross examination by Ld. APP also exhibited one genuine pouch as Ex. PW2/H and one infringed pouch as Ex. PW2/J, but again nowhere this witness states that the infringed pouch Ex. PW2/J was recovered from the possession of any of the four accused. Rather in the cross examination by the accused this witness stated that he did not accompany the police to the premises of the accused and instead his sales staff accompanied the police to the place where recoveries were effected. The witness states that he kept on sitting in the office of Crime Branch and did JUDGMENT/STATE VS. GIRDHARI LAL ORS./ FIR NO.04/93/U.S.63 of Copyright Act, 1957 & 78, 79 OF TMM ACT, `958/ ACQUITTED/04.8.2009 /Page 12 of 24 k not visit the premises of M/s. Kaushal Trading Company or the premises of M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons or the premises from where alleged recoveries were effected. He stated that he signed the memos Ex. PW2/B, PW2/C and PW2/E at the Crime Branch office in the presence of his sales staff and police officials. Once this witness admits that he was not a witness of recovery himself from any of the premises, the admission of a witness of his signatures on the recovery memos becomes absolutely useless.