Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1413 2017 SLD 1413 2017 CLD 1535
Intellectual Property Tribunal
Criminal Case No. 10 of 2017, decision Dated: 02-06-2017.
SHAKIL AHMED ABBASI, PRESIDING OFFICER
Bilal Rasheed for Accused.

THE STATE, THROUGH P.S. FIA CORPORATE CRIME CIRCLE, SADDAR, KARACHI

VS

TAHIR ALAM AND ANOTHER

Law: Copyrights Ordinance, 1962

Section: 56,66

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 249-A,103

Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962) ---.--- ---.--- -Ss. 56 & 66 ---.--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.249-A & 103 ---.--- FIR was lodged against accused persons for making, illegally trading/assembly of counterfeit watches of complainant's company in violation of S.66 of the Copyright Ordinance, 1962 ---.--- Accused were allegedly caught red-handed having in possession of counterfeit watches and FIA authorities had taken action against accused persons while they were committing violation of S.66 of the Copyright Ordinance, 1962 ---.--- Accused were produced before Judicial Magistrate and two days' remand was granted and accused were released on bail and accused had filed application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C., for their acquittal ---.--- Record showed certain deficiencies/defects to the effect that case was pending for last more than one year for recording evidence of prosecution witnesses, but the same could not be produced for one reason or the other which caused delay in disposal of the matter; that the charge along with the pleas of accused persons was conspicuously found missing from the R and P of court file, nor the same had been mentioned in the index sheet; that no independent witness was found mentioned in the Mashirnama; that S. 103, Cr.P.C. which was a mandatory provision was not complied with; that prosecution had not taken any action against the supplier/manufacturer of the alleged infringed/counterfeit product and that no evidence was filed showing registration of copy right in the name of the complainant ---.--- Validity ---.--- Held, registration of copyright was though not compulsory, but no other evidence was furnished to prove the creation and the use of the alleged infringed/counterfeit artistic work/logo of article of the complainant ---.--- Prosecution had failed to make out its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt ---.--- No offence having been found committed under S.56 of Copyright Ordinance, 1962 attracting provisions of S.66 of the said Ordinance, accused persons merited acquittal ---.--- Application filed under S.249-A, Cr.P.C., was allowed by the Tribunal and accused persons who were on bail, their…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492