Bangalore District Court
Has Identified The Women Purse And Male ... vs No.1 Is The Owner Of Koriyan Boutique And ... on 23 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 4th day of May 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.C.C.No. 8548/2012
2.Date of Offence 22-10-2011
3.Complainant State by City Market Police Station
4.Accused 1.Syed Afzal, S/o late Syed, aged 58
years, No.53, 3rd cross, Slattar
House road, Thimmaiah road,
Shivajinagar, Bangalore
2.Mustaq Mohammed S/o late Faktu
Gulam, aged 40 Years, No.F-3,
Tiskan Plad, near Jumma Masjid,
M.K.Street, Shivajinagar, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.51(A) and (B) and 63 of
of Copyright Act, 1957 and Sec.420 of
IPC.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 and 2 are Acquitted
8.Date of Order 4-5-2015
2 C.C.No.8548/2012.
REASONS
The Inspector of Police, Commercial Street Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused
Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.51(A) and (B) of
Copy right Act, 1957 and Sec.420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
22-10-2011 within the limits of Commercial street Police
station, the accused No.1 being the owner of Koriyan boutique
shop, situated in Safina Plaza Complex, main garden road,
Commercial Street, Bangalore and the accused No.2 being the
owner of Bling shop situated at Pillai Street No.4/2,
Commercial Street Bangalore were in possession and selling of
spurious bags, purse, suitcase belt, ladies bag, ladies belt and
other products in the name of LV over which EIPR company
had copyright, without obtaining any authorization or written
consent from the copyright holder and infringed the copyright
of said company and further the accused Nos.1 and 2 having
knowledge that the above products are spurious in the name
of M/s Louis Vuitton, Malletier are selling the same as if the
said products are manufactured and supplied by copyright
holder company and induced the general public to pay the
price money to the said products and cheated the general
public as well as the copyright holder company and committed
aforesaid offences.
3 C.C.No.8548/2012.
3. The accused Nos.1 and 2 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
altered charge for the offences punishable 51(A) & 63 of
Copyright Act, 1957 and Sec.420 of IPC., and questioned the
accused persons regarding the charge made against them,
they denied the charge and claimed to be try. Subsequently,
by virtue of application filed for alteration of charge, this court
framed the altered charge for the offence under Section 63 of
Copyright Act and Section 420 of IPC, and questioned the
accused persons regarding the altered charge made against
them, they denied the charge and claimed to be try.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, got
examined six witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6, and got marked eleven
documents at Exs.P1 to P11 and also marked ten material
objects as per M.Os.1 to 10. Since C.Ws.3 and 6, did not turn
up before this court, by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP.,
this court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused
Nos.1 and 2, 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.
4 C.C.No.8548/2012.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused
Nos.1 and 2, has examined six witnesses. P.W.1 Anwar Beig,
P.W.2 Renuka K.S and P.W.4 K.Suresh are the Police
Constables who participated in the raid. P.W.3
Davalachandrayan is the independent seizer mahazar witness.
P.W.5 R. Satishkumar is the complainant and P.W.6
P.S. Sudarshan is the Police Inspector who conducted the raid
and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. It
appears in spite of giving sufficient opportunities the
prosecution has not examined another independent seizer
mahazar witness. The learned Sr.APP., has given up the
examination of another police constable C.W.6 herein who said
to have participated in the raid.
8. The testimony of P.W.5 Satishkumar the complainant
indicating that during his market survey, he got information
about selling of spurious products in the name of Louis
Vuitton Malletier company in two shops by name Koriyan
boutique situated at 1st floor, Safina Plaza, Bangalore and
Bling Shop situated at No.4/2, N.P. road, opposite Commercial
Street Bangalore. Since his company i.e., EIPR Company had
copyright over the products of Louis Vuitton, has lodged the
complaint to the Commercial Street police. Accordingly, the
5 C.C.No.8548/2012.
Police Inspector of Commercial Street police have registered
the case.
9. The above said testimony of P.W.1 is corroborated by
P.W.6 P.S. Sudarshan the then Police Inspector of Commercial
Street Police Station. His evidence indicating that on
22-10-2011 at 10-30 a.m., the complainant R.Satish Kumar
P.W.5 herein has lodged the complaint in respect of selling of
spurious products in the name of L.V. brand and accordingly
he registered the case. Thereafter, he called two persons as
panchas and informed them and his staff in respect of raid.
Since said two persons have agreed for the same, he along
with C.W.1, panchas and his staff, visited Safina Plaza and
Koriyan Boutique shops.
10. The testimony of P.W.6 is corroborated by P.W.1
Ansar Beig the Police Constable, P.W.2 Renuka another Police
Constable, P.W.3 Davalachandrayan the independent seizer
mahazar witness and P.W.4 K.Suresh the Head Constable of
Commercial Street Police Station and P.W.5 R.Satishkumar
the complainant herein. Their testimony indicating that P.W.6
the Police sub Inspector of Commercial Street Police Station
took them along with panchas to the Safina Plaza pertaining to
the complaint of selling of spurious products in the name of
Louis Vuitton Company.
6 C.C.No.8548/2012.
11. Their testimony further indicating that on the same
day, they visited Koriyan Boutique shop to conduct the raid.
P.W.5 the complainant verified the said shop and identified
purse, women bags, trolley suitcase, travel bag, belts and key
chain, in all 21 in number in the name of Louis Vuitton
Company. P.W.6 has seized the same by preparing the seizer
mahazar. Thereafter, they visited the Bling Shop. The
complainant has identified the women purse and male purse
in all 12 in number. P.W.6 has seized the same by preparing
the seizer mahazar.
12. The testimony of P.W.6 further indicating that he
took the custody of persons, recorded the statements of
panchas and police staff, released the accused Nos.1 and 2 on
bail. He reported the seizer to the court under
P.F.No.116/2011. After completion of investigation, he filed
the charge sheet before the court.
13. The testimony of P.W.5 further indicating that after
seizer of spurious products, he compared the same with
original products and found that the seized products are
spurious in nature. Accordingly, he issued certificate as per
Ex.P10. P.Ws.1 to 6, have identified the accused persons as
the persons who were selling the spurious products in the
name of L.V.brand.
7 C.C.No.8548/2012.
14. In a case like this, the offences have to prove in a
circumstantial evidence by way of proving the seizure mahazar
of seized products in the name of Louis Vuitton Malletier.
Further, the prosecution has to prove that the seized products
are spurious. Further, the prosecution has to prove that the
Louis Vuitton Company had copyright over L.V. products and
accused No.1 is the owner of Koriyan Boutique and accused
No.2 is the owner of Louis Vuitton Malletier. As stated above,
the prosecution to prove the seizer mahazar has examined six
witnesses. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, is corroborated to
each other in the matter of preparing of seizer mahazar of
spurious products. Though P.Ws.1 to 6 were subjected to
cross-examination, absolutely nothing worth is elicited from
them to doubt their testimony in the matter of preparing of
seizer mahazar and seizer of products in the name of Louis
Vuitton Malletier Company. Absolutely, I have no reason to
disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 6, in the matter of raid,
and seizer of products.
15. In my opinion, mere proving the seizer mahazar is
not sufficient to connect the accused persons for the offences
alleged against them. In order to connect the accused persons,
the prosecution apart from proving the seizer mahazar, has
also to prove that the seized products are spurious in the
name of Louis Vuitton Company.
8 C.C.No.8548/2012.
16. It appears, during the course of investigation the
Investigating Officer has obtained report from one R. Satish
Kumar P.W.5 herein. Admittedly, P.W.5 is the representative
of EIPR Company. Moreover, P.W.5 is the complainant. As
per the say of P.W.5, P.W.6 Investigating Officer has seized
M.Os.1 to 10 as spurious products. When admittedly P.W.5 is
the representative of EIPR Company, naturally he is the
interested witness. It is need less to say that no opinion could
obtain regarding spurious products from the complainant of
the said case. In the instant case, as per the opinion at
Ex.P10, the investigation officer has obtained report regarding
seized produced from the complainant, which is prima facie
not correct on the part of the Investigating Officer. Admittedly,
P.W.5 is the interested witness, naturally he issues certificate
in favour of his company only. Therefore, the certificate at
Ex.P10 cannot be, relied upon to conclude that the seized
products are spurious in the name of Louis Vuitton Company.
Moreover, the Investigating Officer has not seized the original
products to know that the seized products are spurious in the
name of Louis Vuitton Company. In my opinion, the
Investigating Officer ought to have obtained report from the
independent expert preferably the Government recognized
expert regarding the seized products to know whether the said
seized properties are spurious or original. Prima facie, I find
there is lack of investigation on the part of Investigating Officer
in obtaining the report from the complainant. Though P.W.5
9 C.C.No.8548/2012.
in his evidence has stated that he verified and issued the
certificate that the seized products are spurious in the name of
Louis Vuitton company, since he is interested witnesses his
said opinion cannot be relied upon to hold that the seized
produced are spurious in the name of Louis Vuitton company.
Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the seized products are
spurious in the name of Louis Vuitton Company.
17. Further, the prosecution has not examined any
witnesses and has not marked any documents to show that
the accused No.1 is the owner of Koriyan Boutique shop and
accused No.2 is the owner of Bling shop situated within the
limits of Parappana Agrahara Police Station. Therefore, the
prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nos.1 and 2
are the owners of the above referred shops.
18. It appears during the course of evidence the
prosecution marked some trademark certificate. However, no
documents produced to show that EIPR Company had
copyright over L.V. products. No doubt, some trademark
certificates are produced the said trademark certificates are
not conclusive evidence to hold that the EIPR company had
copyright over the L.V. products. Moreover, the Investigating
Officer has not charge sheeted the accused under trademark
10 C.C.No.8548/2012.
offences. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that
the EIPR Company had copyright over L.V. products.
19. It appears, even though the prosecution to prove its
case has examined six witnesses, their evidence is not
sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused persons
are entitled for benefit of doubt.
20. It is to be noted, here that, Mos.1 to 10 as per the
prosecution are spurious products in the name of Louis
Vuitton Company. It appears even though according to
prosecution the said properties are spurious, in the name of
Louis Vuitton Company, but it is valuable. Therefore, it is just
and necessary to put the seized properties into public auction
after removing the label LV. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Sec.420 of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
11 C.C.No.8548/2012.M.O.1 to 10 are confiscated to Government after the 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 4th day of May 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, Ansarbeig, P.W.2, Renuka.K.S, P.W.3, Dhavalachandrayan, P.W.4, K.Suresh, P.W.5, R.Satishkumar, P.W.6, P.S.Sudarshan;
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1, Mahazar,
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P1(b), Signature of P.W.2,
Ex.P1(c), Signature of P.W.3,
Ex.P1(d), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P2, Complaint,
Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P3, Authorisation letter,
Ex.P4, Power of Attorney,
Ex.P5, Trade Mark Certificate,
Ex.P6, Trade Mark Certificate,
12 C.C.No.8548/2012.
Ex.P7, Authorisation letter,
Ex.P8, Authorisation letter,
Ex.P9, Technical certificate,
Ex.P10, Certificate issued by Commercial Street Police
Inspector,
Ex.P10(a), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P10(b), Signature of P.W.6,
Ex.P11, FIR
Ex.P11(a), Signature of P.W.6,
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 Hand purse, ladies bags, trolley suitcase, travel bag, to belts, key chain, pouches;
M.O. 10 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.13 C.C.No.8548/2012.
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Sec.420 of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 and
2 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
M.O.1 to 10 are confiscated to Government after the appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
14 C.C.No.8548/2012.