Karnataka High Court
Disa India Limited vs Mr Sajjadh on 27 May, 2024
1 CRL.A NO.1306 OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1306 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
DISA INDIA LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PRESTIGE TAKT, 23,
KASTURBA ROAD CROSS,
4TH FLOOR, BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. LOKESH SAXENA.
......APPELLANT
(BY SMT. P.S.DEEPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. YOVINI RAJESH ROHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR SAJJADH
PROPRIETOR,
ZETA INDIA, 2ND FLOOR, 339/358,
THIPPASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 075
2. MR A BHATTACHARYA
SALES MANAGER,
EMPLOYEE NO.10098,
DISA INDIA LIMITED
NO.908, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWERS,
NEHRU PALACE,
NEW DELHI - 1100019
.......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. BALASUBRAMANYA B N, ADVOCATE)
2 CRL.A NO.1306 OF 2018
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THE INSTANT
CRIMINAL APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 08.03.2018, IN C.C.NO.22080/2008 PASSED
BY THE IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR
THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 63 OF THE COPY RIGHT ACT,
1957 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONVICT THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE SAID OFFENCE; b) PASS
ANY SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
12.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C, is
by the complainant challenging the acquittal of
respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence
punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3. Complainant is a limited company
incorporated under the Companies Act. Complainant
initially filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C
against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging offences punishable
under Sections 420, 468, 120(B), 463 I.P.C r/w Section
63 and 51 of the Copyright Act (for short 'the Act').
4. The trial Court referred the said complaint for
investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C to
Jeevanbhimanagar Police. The concerned police
registered the case in Cr.No.192/2007 and after
conducting detailed investigation filed 'B' report.
Complainant filed objections to the 'B' report. Vide order
dated 05.02.2008, the trial Court has rejected the 'B'
report and called upon the complainant to prove the
allegations against the accused. After recording the
sworn statement of the complainant, vide order dated
18.11.2008, the trial Court has ordered for registering
the case against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence
under Section 51 and 63 of the Act.
5. Accordingly, the trial Court has framed charge
against accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence punishable
under Section 63 of the Act.
6. Accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
7. In order to prove the allegations against
accused, on behalf of complainant, two witnesses are
examined as PW-1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to 20 are marked.
8. During the course of their statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused have denied the
incriminating evidence led by the complainant.
9. Accused have not led any defence evidence
10. Vide the impugned judgment and order the
trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2.
11. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has
filed this appeal, contending that the impugned judgment
and order is grossly illegal, both in law as well as on
facts. It is capricious, without application of mind and
just amount to abuse of the process of the Court and
liable to be set aside. The trial Court has grossly erred in
holding that complainant has no copyright over the
drawings/designs as per Ex.P 18 and 19 and complainant
has failed to prove the said fact and therefore,
complainant has failed to prove that accused have
committed the offence under Section 63 of the Act. The
trial Court has failed to appreciate that the offence under
Section 63 of the Act is not confined to drawings, but
also applicable to material like customer list, price,
sensitive information, like quotations, etc, and the
copyright material did not be disclosed before the trial
Court and Ex.P16 and 17 itself describe various copyright
material which are sufficient document to evidence
ownership of copyright of complainant. The trial Court
has also failed to appreciate that as per Ex.P17, the
accused No.2 has admitted of having committed the
copyright violation and the same has remained
uncontroverted.
11.1 The trial Court has also failed to appreciate
the fact that the accused have not stepped into the
witness box to controvert the evidence of PW-1 and 2.
There is sufficient material to convict accused Nos.1 and
2. Having regard to the fact that Ex.P17 bears the
signature of accused No.2, the trial Court has erred in
holding that it is not certified by anyone. In the light of
Ex.P16 and 17, which are clear admissions of having
copyright of complainant, the expert opinion is not
required and trial Court has grossly erred in holding
otherwise. The transfer of data of the complainant by the
accused amounts to offence under Section 63 of the Act
and this fact is not appreciated by the trial Court. Viewed
from any angle, the impugned judgment and order are
not sustainable and pray to allow the appeal, convict the
accused and sentence them appropriately.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for
accused supported the impugned judgment and order
and sought for dismissal of the appeal also.
13. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and
perused the record.
14. It is an undisputed fact that complainant is
engaged in the manufacture of foundry equipments and
the said machine drawings are licensed by the
complainant from DISA industries, Denmark. It is also
not in dispute that accused No.1 was an Ex- employee of
complainant company and retired as Vice President,
though it is denied by PW-1 that he was the
Founder/Member of complainant company. It is also not
in dispute that accused No.1 after his retirement from
complainant company, he has started a new company by
name ZETA INDIA and he is manufacturing competitive
components of DISA and a competitor of products
manufactured by the complainant company.
15. It is also not in dispute that when the
complaint was filed, accused No.2 was still the employee
of Company and subsequently, he has been discharged
from service. The accused have alleged that subsequent
to his discharge, accused No.2 has sued the complainant
for payment of arrears and succeeded in his claim. The
allegations against accused are that while still in the
employment of complainant, accused No.2 has
transferred Patented drawings, list of its clients and
quotations to accused No.1 and in turn accused No.1 has
supplied the same to one of the customers of
complainant and through him complainant came to know
about the fraudulent acts committed by accused and filed
the complaint. Thereby accused have violated the
copyright.
16. Though, time and again PW-1 has deposed
that the basic drawings of complainant are patent, during
his cross-examination, he has stated that the same are
not registered before the copyright authority and claimed
that they have obtained global patent. Admittedly, the
complainant has not produced any documents to show
that it has obtained global patent of the basic drawings
of complainant company. As deposed by PW-1, no
documents are produced to show that Ex.P18 and 19
which are allegedly sent by accused No.2 to accused
No.1 are registered under the copyright authority.
Ex.P16 is stated to be the e-mail sent by accused No.2 to
accused No.1 along with Ex.P18 and 19. However, during
his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that complainant
is having no document to show that Ex.P16 is transferred
from the e-mail account of accused No.2. He has also
stated that he has not obtained copy of the files referred
to in Ex.P16. As admitted by PW-1 Ex.P18 and 19 are
true copies of e-mail, but the same are not certified as
the extract of complainant company. Admittedly, the
complainant has not secured expert opinion with regard
to the authenticity of Ex.P18 and 19. As admitted by
PW-1, complainant has not secured expert opinion to
show that Ex.P16 was transferred from the e-mail
account of accused No.2 to the e-mail account of accused
No.1.
17. Despite claiming that the drawings of
complainant company are registered with the copyright
authority and also having global patent, the complainant
has failed to establish the said fact. It has also failed to
prove that accused No.2 has sent patented drawings of
complainant company to accused No.2 and in turn he has
supplied the same to some of the clients of complainant.
Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed
on record the trial Court has rightly held that the
complainant has miserably failed to prove the allegations
against the accused and acquitted them. On re-
appreciation of the entire material placed on record, this
Court does not find any justifiable grounds to interfere
with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. In the
result, the appeal fails and accordingly the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal filed by the complainant under
Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C is dismissed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated
08.03.2018 in C.C.No.22080/2008 on the
file of IX ACMM, Bengaluru, is hereby
confirmed.
(iii) The Registry is directed to send back the
trial Court records along with copy of this
judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
