Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 9 September, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117656
CRR-401-2016 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-401-2016
Date of decision: 09.09.2024
Sandeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Rishab Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 28.09.2015 passed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide which the appeal filed by
the petitioner against the judgment dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Court of
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, vide which respondents No.2 & 3
were acquitted by the learned trial Court in a criminal case having FIR
No.131 dated 18.08.2011 under Section 420 IPC and under Sections 37, 51,
52, 63-A, 68-A of Copy Right Act, Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar,
was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on
18.08.2011, complainant Sandeep Kumar gave complaint with allegations
that he has been appointed by MSM Discovery Private Limited having its
Regional Office at Unit 5,6,7 and 8 Time Tower, Ground Floor, MG Road,
Gurugram, to stop illegal broadcasting/screening of T.V. Channels by
private persons. Today, he received information that M/s God Father Cable
Connection, its partner Gurdev Singh Bhullar and his employees and Sub-
operator Baljinder Singh were unauthorizedly broadcasting T.V. Channels
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117656
CRR-401-2016 [2]
without permission of MSM Discovery Private Limited, by collecting
money from public at large and there by causing heavy financial loss to the
company and government as well. On the basis of the said complaint, the
FIR was registered by the police against respondents No.2 and 3. The
premises of the accused persons were raided and certain devices and
equipments used in broadcasting of T.V. Channels were taken into
possession. After completion of investigation, police presented challan.
3. Prima Facie case being made out, charges were framed against
respondents No.2 and 3 under Section 420 IPC and under Sections 63 and
68-A of the Copy Right Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution
examined PW-1 Kahan Singh resident of Sri Guru Arjandev Nagar who
stated on oath that he did not know accused Baljinder Singh and Gurdev
Singh present in the Court and was declared as hostile witness and was
cross-examined by the State counsel but he failed to support the case of
prosecution. PW-2 Kamaljit Kaur stated that she had taken cable connection
from M/s God Father Communication and is paying Rs.250/- per month as
charges.
5. Prosecution availed number of opportunities but failed to
examine any other witness and finally the prosecution evidence was closed
by order by the trial Court.
6. The statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were
recorded wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to them but they
pleaded false implication and innocence. The accused had not led any
evidence in their defence.
7. After taking into consideration the submissions made by
counsel for both the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted respondents
No.2 and 3 vide judgment dated 22.12.2014. Being aggrieved, the
complainant filed appeal and the same was dismissed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 28.09.2015. Still
being not satisfied, the petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision
petition.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117656
CRR-401-2016 [3]
8. The counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned
judgments submits that the learned trial Court and the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, fell into error and passed the impugned judgments without
properly appreciating the evidence available on the record. It is further
submitted that in the appeal, petitioner filed application under Section 311
Cr.P.C to lead additional evidence but the same was dismissed by the first
Appellate Court vide separate order. It is further submitted that the
petitioner be given one opportunity to lead evidence by invoking provision
of Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the present petition be
allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside with direction to the
trial Court to record additional evidence and then to decide the case afresh.
9. The State counsel also argued on the same lines.
10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner.
11. Admittedly, no revision petition was filed by the petitioner
against the order whereby application filed by him under Section 311
Cr.P.C was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
12. From the perusal of the judgment dated 22.12.2014 passed by
the trial Court, it is evident that present petitioner failed to appear in the
witness box despite availing number of opportunities. It also appears that
the concerned devices and instruments which were used unauthorizedly by
the accused persons for broadcasting of T.V channels were not produced in
the Court during the trial. Only two private persons were examined on
behalf of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons. One
of them namely PW-1 Kahan Singh failed to support the case of
prosecution. Further, it has been observed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge that PW-2 stated in her deposition that the cable connection
in question was not provided to her by respondents No.2 and 3. From the
perusal of the judgment passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Amritsar dated 28.09.2015, it could not be made out that any prayer was
made before the said Court to re-open the case with liberty to the
petitioner/prosecution to produce additional evidence. The said prayer made
by the petitioner for the first time, at this belated stage is not permissible
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117656
CRR-401-2016 [4]
and is accordingly rejected. Further, the law presume double presumption in
favour of the accused who was acquitted by the learned trial Court and
further, the said order of acquittal was upheld by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge.
13. In light of the above discussion, no ground for interference is
made out in the present revision petition filed by the petitioner/complainant.
14. Consequently, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed
being devoid of merits.
09.09.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
