Bangalore District Court
The Police Staff Who Participated In The ... vs Unknown on 18 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 18th day of February 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.CC No 16975/2012
2.Date of Offence 12-11-2011
3.Complainant State by Chickpet Police Station
4.Accused 1. Bhagchand S/o. Babulal,
Aged 24 Years, No.31, Madhukar
Electricals, M.T.Street, B.V.K
Iyengar Road, Chickpet,
Bangalore city.
2. Rajeshkumar Choudhary
S/o. Chunaram Choudhary,
Aged 27 Years, No.114, Hico
Electricals Industires, V.S.Lane,
S.R.S, Market, Chickpet,
Bangalore.
3. Pradeep S/o. Babulal, Aged 24
Years, No.93, Man andir
Marketing, Sunnakallupet, 3rd
Cross, Halasooru gate,
Bangalore city.
5. Offences complained U/s.51(a),(b) 63 of Copyright Act and
of 420 of IPC.
6.Plea A1 to 3 are pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order A1 to 3 are Acquitted
8.Date of Order 18-2-2015
2 CC.No.16975/2012
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Chickpet Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the A1 to 3 for
the offences punishable U/s. 51(a),(b) and 63 of Copyright Act
and Sec.420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 12-
11-2011 at 2.30 pm., within the limits of Chickpet Police
station, the A1 to 3 were found in possession and selling the
duplicate/counterfeit Regulators in the name of Crompton
Greaves Company in their respective shops without there
being any authorization or written consent from the copyright
holder and selling the same to the general public as if the said
regulators are originals of copyright holder company and
cheated copyright holder company as well as the general
public and thereby committed aforesaid offences.
3. The A1 to 3 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 U/s. 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 of
IPC and questioned the accused persons 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 3 witnesses as PW 1 to 3 and got marked 8
3 CC.No.16975/2012
documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and also marked material
object as per MO 1. Since CW 1, 3 and 5 to 8 did not turn up
before this court, hence, 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., they 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 A1 to 3 has
examined three witnesses. PW 1 H.K.Puttaswamy is the
Investigating Officer who conducted the raid and filed charge
sheet. PW 2 Ameeth is the independent seizure mahazar
witness. PW 3 G.Guruprasad is another seizure mahazar
witness. In spite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
prosecution has not examined other witnesses on record.
8. The testimony of PW 1 indicating that on 12-11-2011
he received the complaint from CW 1 Dhavalachandra the
Investigating Officer of EIPR Company regarding selling of
spurious regulators in the name of Crompton and Greaves
Company. Accordingly, he registered the case. At the time of
lodging the complaint CW 1 has also produced the original
regulators and he reported the same to the court under PF
No.63/11. Thereafter, he called two persons to the police
station as panchas and requested them to stand as panchas
4 CC.No.16975/2012
and they agreed for the same. Thereafter, he CW 1 to 3, along
with his staff visited M/S.Madhukar Electricals Shop. CW 1
has identified 40 regulators in the said shop as spurious in
the name of Crompton and Greaves. Accordingly, he seized the
same by preparing the seizure mahazar and reported to the
court under P.F.No.64/11. Thereafter, he enquired the person
in the said shop came to know his name as Bhagchand. He
enquired the said Bhagchand about seized regulators, the said
Bhagchand has stated that he purchased the said regulators
from Hyco Electricals shop and selling the same. Thereafter,
he along with CW 1 to 3 and said Bhagchand visited Hyco
Electricals shop. CW 1 has identified 105 spurious regulators
in the said shop. He seized the same by preparing the seizure
mahazar and reported the seizer to the court under
P.F.No.65/11.
9. His testimony further indicating that the said
Bhagchand and Rajesh kumar Choudhari have stated that
they are selling the seized regulators by purchasing the same
from one Pradeep, of from Manmandir Marketing at
Sunkalpet. Thereafter, he, CW 1 to 3 along with A1 and 2
visited Manmandir Marketing shop situated at sunkalpet but
said shop was locked. Thereafter, he deputed head constable
No. 2117 of his police station to trace the owner of said
Manmandir Marketing but he could not trace him. Thereafter,
he obtained report from CW 5 Satish Kumar the General
Manager of EIPR Company about seized regulators as whether
they are original or duplicate. He recorded the statements of
5 CC.No.16975/2012
CW 2 to 4, 6 to 8. After completion of investigation, he filed
the chargesheet against accused persons.
10. As stated above inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined the
complainant, the police staff who participated in the raid and
also CW 5 who gave report regarding seized regulators.
11. In a case like this offences have to be proved in a
circumstantial evidence by way of proving the seizer mahazar.
Further the prosecution has to prove that the seized regulators
are spurious in the name of Crompton and Greaves Company.
Further the prosecution has to prove that EIPR Company had
copyright over Crompton and Graves fan regulators. Further
the prosecution has to prove that A1 is the owner of
M/S.Madhukar Electricals shop, A2 is the owner of Hyco
Electricals shop and A3 is the owner of Manmandir marketing
shop.
12. It appears the Investigating Officer PW 1 has
prepared seizure mahazar at Ex.P.3 near, M/S.Madhukar
Electricals shop and another mahazar as per Ex.P.4 near
Manmandir Marketing shop. But it appears for both seizure
mahazar at Ex.P.3 and 4 the witnesses are not different except
Investigating Officer. It appears the prosecution to prove
Ex.P.3 has examined the Investigating Officer who prepared
the same as Ex.P.1 and also one independent mahazar witness
as PW 3. Further the prosecution to prove Ex.P.4 has
examined only the Investigating Officer.
6 CC.No.16975/2012
13. Now let us consider whether the prosecution has
proved Ex.P.3 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubt. As stated
above PW 1 has spoken regarding seizer of 40 spurious
regulators from M.S.Madhukar Electricals shop and 120
regulators from Hyco Electricals shop by preparing the seizure
mahazar at Ex.P.3. Further PW 1 has spoken regarding
preparing of mahazar near Manmandir Marketing shop as per
Ex.P.4. Admittedly, no spurious regulators seized under
mahazar at Ex.P.4. Though, PW 1 has spoken regarding seizer
of spurious regulators from M.S.Madhukar Electricals shop
and Hyco Electricals shop but he has not explained the seizer
as per Ex.P.3. Admittedly, PW 1 is the Investigating Officer
who always interests in out come of his investigation and
prosecution. Naturally PW 1 is the interested witness. Since
PW 1 has not explained the seized as per Ex.P.3 and since he
is the interested witness, it is not safe to place reliance on his
testimony. Moreover, it is to be noted here that, at the request
of Learned Sr.Learned Sr.APP, further examination of PW 1
was deferred. Unfortunately, thereafter PW 1 has not at all
tendered for further examination. As per well settled law, if
any witnesses who gives his part evidence and for some
reason, his evidence deferred, subsequently if said witness did
not turn up before the court, whatever the evidence of said
witness cannot be looked into. In the instant case, even
though PW 1 has given his part of evidence, subsequently he
has not tendered for further examination. As such, the
testimony of PW 1 cannot be looked into.
7 CC.No.16975/2012
14. PW 3 Guruprasad is another independent seizure
mahazar witness as per Ex.P.3. His testimony indicating that
on 11-2-2011 the police inspector of Chickpet Police station
called him to the station and introduced CW 1
Dhavalachandra. He was asked to stand as pancha to the raid
to be conducted pertaining to selling of spurious Crompton
and Greaves Companies regulators. He agreed for the same.
Thereafter, police called one Muniyappa as pancha to the
Police station. After visit of said pancha, CW 1 took him one
Muniyappa and others to Madhukar Electrical shop, Hyco
Electronics shop and Mahaveer Electronics shops situated at
Chikkapet. In the said shops CW 1 identified fake regulators
in the name of his company and products the same before said
PSI. Inturn the said PSI has seized the same by preparing the
seizure mahazar. It is to be noted here that at the request of
Learned Sr.Learned Sr.Learned Sr.APP, the further
examination of PW 3 was deferred. But subsequently, even
PW 3 has not tendered for further examination. Since, PW 3
has not tendered for further examination, in view of my above
discussion his evidence cannot be looked into.
15. As stated above inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other witness
on record. Therefore, even though PW 1 and 3 have supported
the case of the prosecution to prove seizer mahazar, since they
have not tendered for further examination, their evidence
cannot be looked into. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to
prove seizure mahazar at Ex.P.3.
8 CC.No.16975/2012
16. Further, the prosecution has not examined the expert
who gave opinion as per Ex.P.6 that seized products are
spurious in the name of Crompton and Greaves Company.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that seized
products are spurious in the name of Crompton and Greaves
Company.
17. Further, prosecution has not examined any witness
and has not got marked any documents to show that EIPR
Company had copyright over Crompton and Greaves
Company. Further, the prosecution has not examined any
witnesses and has not got marked any documents to show
that A1 to 3 are the owners of M.S.Madhukar Electricals shop,
Hyco Electricals shop and Manmandir Marketing shop
respectively. Further if we carefully perused entire
prosecution papers no specific allegation against A3. Even
though the prosecution has examined another witness as PW
2 who is the circumstantial witness, but he has not supported
case of the prosecution.
18. Therefore, having regard the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the opinion considered opinion that the
evidence on record is insufficient to come to the conclusion
that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, A1 to 3 are entitled for benefit of doubt.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
9 CC.No.16975/2012
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of A1 to 3 for the offences U/s. 63 of Copyright Act and Sec.420 of IPC.
Hence, acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., A1 to 3 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
The properties seized under PF.No.63/2011, 64/11 and 65/11 shall be return to the CW 1 or CW 5 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 18th day of February 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 H.K.Puttaswamy PW2 Amith PW 3 S. Guruprasad
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature
Ex.P.2 FIR
Ex.P.2(a) Signature PW 1
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature
Ex.P.4 Panchas
10 CC.No.16975/2012
Ex.P.4(a) Signature
Ex.P.5 and 6 Report
Ex.P.7 and 8 License
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
MO1 Regulator and 2 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS &
MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
11 CC.No.16975/2012