Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The prosecution case is that on 08.06.2011 at 2.50 pm at Tech India Solution at 108B, Deepali Building­92, Nehru Place, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intension were found in possession of total 45 fake laptop batteries and 54 fake laptop adapters having duplicate logo of HP for the purpose of selling and that the accused persons were found in possession of aforesaid articles without any proper bill/purchase documents and thereby committed the alleged offence.

2. After supplying copies of chargesheet and documents and on finding a prima­facie case, charge for the offence punishable u/s 63 Copyright Act was framed against all the accused persons by Ld Predecessor vide order dated 21.01.2017 to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to substantiate and prove the charge against the accused persons prosecution examined as many as 03 witnesses.

4. PW­1 ASI Surender Singh deposed that on 08.06.2011 he was posted as HC and on that day IO Inspector Subhash Malik joined him into the investigation of the present case and formed a raiding party comprising him, complainant Gagan Sindhwani, Gulfaraz Makhani i.e Director of EIPR India Ltd, SI Shanti Prasad, HC Rakam Singh and Ct. Om Prakash and they all reached at Paras Cinema, Nehru Place, New Delhi and raided the shop no. 108B, Deepali Building­92, Nehru Place, New Delhi and the name of the said shop was "Tech India Solution". He further stated that at the counter of that shop two persons were found sitting whose identity was established as Tribhuvan Sharma and Manish Kumar and in their presence and at the instance of complainant the said shop was searched and 45 laptop batteries of different size and models and 54 laptop adapters of different size and models all having logo of HP were recovered. He further stated that the complainant told that the abovesaid articles recovered were having the forged/fake logo of HP company and thereafter IO seized all the aforesaid articles after separating one laptop battery and one laptop adapter as sample. He stated that the case property was serialed and put in plastic katta and sealed with the seal of "SM". He stated that the sample laptop battery and sample laptop adapter were also sealed in separate pullanda with the seal of SM and all the articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He stated that seal after use was handed over to SI Shanti Prasad and thereafter IO prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Om Prakash and after registration of FIR, accused Tribhuvan Sharma and Manish Kumar were arrested and their personal search were conducted by the IO. He further stated that the IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused persons vide memo Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A and he also seized photocopy of one rent agreement dated 22.04.2010 as produced by accused Tribhuvan Sharma which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. He stated that the photocopy of rent agreement is Mark­A. He further stated that the case property was deposited in Malkhana of PS Kalkaji. He stated that IO tried to search the accused persons but he could not find any other accused on 08.06.2011. He identified accused Tribhuvan Sharma in the Court. The case property was not shown to this witness. This witness was cross examined by Ld defence counsel.

5. PW­2 Gulfaraz Makhani, Director of EIPR India Pvt Ltd deposed that he had been running his company since the year 1999 and the said company was also having a branch office at D­9, Ground Floor, Green Park, Delhi. He stated that complainant Gagan Sindhwani was an employee of his company and his company was indulged in intellectual property right protection of its client companies. He stated that M/s Hawlett Packard (HP) company was also the client of his company and that his company was authorised by M/s HP company, USA to conduct survey, to investigate and to initiate legal action against violators of intellectual property rights of the said company. He stated that in the year 2011 during survey by his employee Gagan Sindhwani in South­East District, Delhi, it was revealed that some unauthorised retailers/wholesellers were selling counterfeit product i.e laptop batteries and laptop chargers of M/s Hawlett Packard (HP) company and thus violating the copyright of the said company. He stated that thereafter Gagan Sindhwani filed a written complaint Ex.PW2/A. He stated that Gagan Sindhwani has left his company and his present whereabouts are not known. He stated that he identified signatures of Gagan Sindhwani on the abovesaid complaint as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of business. He stated that on 08.06.2011 he alongwith Gagan Sindhwani reached office of DIU South­East District and met the IO Inspector Subhash Malik and at that time they were having specific information that counterfeit products of HP were stored and being sold at Shop No. 108B, Deepali Building­92, Nehru Place, Delhi and the said information was shared with the IO who formed a raiding party comprising of himself, Gagan Sindhwani, IO and other police officials and they all reached at the abovesaid shop at Nehru Place where they met accused Manish Kumar and one person namely Uttam. He stated that thereafter IO searched the aforesaid shop and on his identification seized 54 laptop batteries and 45 laptop adapters which were counterfeit products of Hawlett Packard company and having false logo of HP company. He stated that thereafter IO seized the abovesaid batteries and adapters after giving them respective serial numbers vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A with the seal of "SM". He stated that he also provided original laptop batteries of HP company and original laptop adapters of HP company to the IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. He also identified his signatures on arrest memos and personal search memos Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/F. He further stated that during the investigation he also handed over certified true copy of his letter of appointment by HP company for its brand protection which is Ex.PW2/H, certified true copy of appointment letter of Gagan Sindhwani by EIPR Ex.PW2/I, certified true copy of his letter communicating Delhi address of his company which is Ex.PW2/J, true copy of trademark documents of Hawlett Packard company and its renewal Ex.PW2/K and Ex.PW2/K1, true copy of international copyright registration document of Hawlett Packard company as Ex.PW2/K2 and lease document of his company at Delhi Ex.PW2/K3. He stated that the IO inquired him and recorded his statement. During his testimony this witness identified accused Tribhuvan Sharma and Girish, however, he stated that he was not clear as to which of two persons identified by him were present at the time of raid at the shop in question. Ld APP for the State sought permission to cross examine this witness as he was resiling from his earlier statement u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO during investigation. During his cross examination by Ld APP for the State he admitted that from the possession of accused persons 45 counterfeit HP laptop batteries and 54 counterfeit HP laptop adapters were recovered. He admitted that at the time of raid at the shop accused Manish Kumar and Tribhuvan Sharma was found present. He denied that he was not deliberately identifying accused Tribhuvan Sharma. The attention of this witness was specifically drawn towards accused Tribhuvan Sharma present in the Court but this witness stated that he could not correctly recollect as to whether he was the same person who was present at the shop at the time of raid. This witness was not shown the case property. This witness was cross examined by Ld defence counsel during which he could not tell as to whether IO requested some public persons to join the raiding party or not and he stated that in his presence IO did not request any shopkeeper, street vendor or public person near the raided shop to join the investigation. He stated that some papers were prepared at the spot and he also stated that he signed all the documents after reaching at the office of DIU/SED and he stated that the case property was sealed in the office of DIU/SED but he could not tell as to how the case property was brought to the office of DIU/SED. He could not tell the size of shop which was raided. He stated that the crowd gathered at the shop. He could not tell as to how many pullandas were prepared by the IO in the office of DIU/SED. He stated that the samples of original laptop batteries and adapters were given to police officials in his absence. He denied that nothing was recovered from the accused persons or that he was deposing falsely.

6. PW­3 Inspector Subhash Malik deposed that on 23.05.2011 the complaint Ex.PW2/A of Gagan Sindhwani of EIPR India Ltd was received in his office of DIU/SED and it was marked to him for inquiry by the then ACP. He stated that pursuant to the complaint, complainant Gagan Sindhwani and one Gulfaraz Makhani reached his office on 08.06.2011 and informed him that on the shop of Tech India Solution at 108B, Deepali Building­92, Nehru Place, Delhi counterfeit products i.e laptop batteries and chargers of HP company were being unauthorisedly sold. He stated that he apprised the then ACP and on his directions a raiding party comprising of police officials, Gagan Sindhwani and Gulfaraz Makhani was prepared and they all reached at Nehru Place market at about 2.30 pm. He stated that he requested 4­5 public persons/passersby to join the investigation but not of them agreed and they all reached the shop no. 108B, Deepali Building, Nehru Place, Delhi where accused Tribhuvan and Manish Kumar were found sitting and managing the counter of the said shop with the name Lap Life Laptop. He further stated that he informed the accused persons about the purpose of raid and thereafter at the instance of complainant and Gulfaraz Makhani a search was conducted and 45 counterfeit HP laptop batteries and 54 counterfeit HP laptop adapters having fake logo of HP were recovered. He stated that he inquired the accused persons about the recovered articles but they could not give any satisfactory reply and thereafter one laptop battery and one laptop adapter was separated as sample and remaining articles were given serial number from serial no. 1 to 53 and sealed with the seal of SM and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point C. He stated that thereafter he prepared the rukka Ex.PW3/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Om Prakash. He stated that the investigation was marked to him during which he prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/B and the complainant also handed over him one original laptop battery and one original laptop adapter of HP which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C and were also sealed with the seal of "SM". He stated that after its use, the seal was handed over to SI Shanti Prasad and thereafter he arrested accused Tribhuvan and Manish Kumar and conducted their personal search vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E and personal search memos Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/F respectively. He stated that he interrogated the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. He also stated that he also seized the copy of rent agreement already Mark­A regarding the aforesaid shop which was produced by accused Tribhuvan and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. He stated that during investigation complainant also handed over documents Ex.PW2/H, Ex.PW2/I, Ex.PW2/J, Ex.PW2/K, Ex.PW2/K1, Ex.PW2/K2 and Ex.PW2/K3. He stated that on 09.06.2011 he produced the case property before Ld MM for inspection and he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC and he searched the other accused persons but could not find them. He stated that thereafter he was transferred and he handed over the case file to MHC(R) and the further investigation was taken up by SI Shanti Prasad (since expired). He identified the signatures of SI Shanti Prasad on documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G. He also identified the signatures of SI Shanti Prasad on arrest and personal search memo of accused Girish Sharma which are Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D and on the carbon copy of reply filed in the Court of Ms. R. Kirannath alongwith documents Ex.PW3/E (colly). He identified the batteries and adapters which are Mark­A and Mark­B allegedly recovered and seized and the sample of battery and adapter which are Mark­C and Mark­D and all the case properties are Ex.P1 (colly). This witness was cross examined by Ld defence counsel during which he stated that he requested several nearby shopkeepers to join the investigation but none of them agreed but he could not tell particulars of the said shop whose owners were requested to join the investigation. He stated that they reached at the shop at about 2.45 pm and they finally left the spot at about 6.00 pm and the complainant and Gulfaraz Makhani left the spot at about 5.00 pm. He stated that he sealed the case property at the spot and that he recorded the statement of complainant and that of Gulfaraz Makhani at the spot. He admitted that the complainant and Gulfaraz Makhani were the employees of the complainant company and that there is no other independent witness in the present case. He stated that he did not obtain the original rent agreement of the shop and he could not tell as to whether he examined or recorded the statement of owner of the shop. He also admitted that the alleged rent agreement Mark­A was not effective/valid on the date of raid. He denied that he intentionally did not examine Sanjeev Gupta owner of the said shop as he did not hand over any document/rent agreement regarding the shop. He also stated that he recorded the statement of Gulfaraz Makhani only once at the spot after the registration of FIR. He denied that nothing was recovered from the shop or from the possession of the accused persons as alleged or that the accused persons were falsely implicated.