Delhi District Court
Ps Seelampur State vs . Khursheed Alam, Etc. 1 Of 5 on 20 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03(NE), ROOM NO.71,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CR No.28/15
Unique case ID no. 02402R0204822011
FIR No. 524/05
PS Seelampur
U/s 292 IPC r/w 52A/63-65/68 Copyright Act
State
Versus
1. Khursheed Alam
S/o Sh. Abdul Rashid
R/o Matlub Jute Wale Ka Makan
Shaheed Nagar, P.S. Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh.
Permanent Address: Vill Gadhaya, Kasha
Sikahabad, Distt. Firojabad, U.P.
2. Vinod
S/o Sh. Chokhe Lal
R/o H.No.A/106, Devli Ext.
Sangalm Vihar
Delhi.
3. Permanand
S/o Sh. Shri Dutt
R/o H.No.A/114, Devli Ext. Sangam Vihar
Delhi.
Permanent Add: Vill. Jhodda
P.S. Jhodda Distt. Pithoragarh, Uttaranchal. .... Accused.
FIR No 524/05 )
PS Seelampur State Vs. Khursheed Alam, etc. 1 of 5
Date of Filing : 14.07.2011
Date of reserving for order : 20.10.2015
Date of pronouncement : 20.10.2015
ORDER
Vide this order, I shall dispose of a revision petition filed by the State against the respondents against the order of discharge passed by the then Ld. ACMM II dated 26.04.2011.
2. Arguments heard.
3. It is submitted on behalf of State by Ld. Addl. P.P. that Ld. Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction thereby discharging the accused Khursheed Alam, Vinod and Permanand Anand as they were not only involved in the activities in violation of Copyright Act but 15 CDs of blue films were also recovered from accused Vinod and Permanand Anand, who were running a shop M/s Lal Music Center. It is further argued that the reason of discharge of accused given by Ld. Trial Court was against the law as Ld. Trial Court was not required to go into the depth of allegations against the accused and only prima-facie case was to be seen to frame charges which was very well there. It is further argued that sufficient material was collected by the prosecution to connect the accused and rest was matter of trial. It is further argued that the discharge order passed by Ld Trial Court against the accused/respondents Khursheed Alam, Vinod and Permanand is liable to be set aside and charges should be framed against them.
FIR No 524/05 ) PS Seelampur State Vs. Khursheed Alam, etc. 2 of 5
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has argued that the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is not bearing any illegality or infirmity as Khursheed Alam was only an employee of accused Md. Rafiq who has been charged u/s 52A, 63 and 68 of Copy Right Act alongwith section 292 IPC. It is further argued that prosecution has failed to collect any evidence of ownership of M/s Lal Music Center which was allegedly being run by accused Vinod and Permanand where accused allegedly found selling CDs of blue films. It is further argued that section 292 IPC is a summon trial and discharge of accused in this offence amounts to acquittal and revision is not maintainable against acquittal. It is prayed that revision is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the then Ld. ACMM-II by which three accused had been discharged. This revision has not been preferred against discharge of accused Umesh Bansal. Accused Khursheed Alam was an employee of accused Md. Rafiq who has been charged u/s 52A, 63 and 68 of Copyright Act and Section 292 IPC. Ld. Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that no criminal liability could be fastened upon an employee Khursheed Alam who was not personally involved, accordingly, he was rightly discharged.
7. So far accused Vinod and Permanand are concerned, recovery of 15 CDs of blue films was effected from their shop M/s Lal Music Center, but FIR No 524/05 ) PS Seelampur State Vs. Khursheed Alam, etc. 3 of 5 prosecution has neither recorded their confession or disclosure statement nor any document of ownership of said shop was seized, accordingly, it could not be prima facie established that accused had any connection with M/s Lal Music Center. In the absence of recovery of any document of ownership of accused regarding M/s Lal Music Center, it was rightly concluded by Ld. Trial Court that prima facie they could not be connected to the alleged recovery of 15 CDs from M/s Lal Music Center. Even date of FIR and seizure memo have contradictions of dates and could not inspire confidence.
8. As such, the act of accused regarding violation of copyright in terms of section 52A, 65 and 68 of Copyright Act could not be made out against the accused in the absence of collection of any material by Prosecution that they were indulged in violation of copyright at any point of time. The activities of accused Vinod and Permanand may be covered only u/s 292 IPC being involved in selling out of CDs of blue films but not under Copyright Act. So far involvement of accused u/s 292 IPC is concerned, it has been held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mander Singh and Others Vs. Ladi 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 388 thereby relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in 1988 (1) RCR (Criminal) 3 titled Municipal Committee Vs. Sh. Labhu Ram and Others 1969 Current Law Journal 619 that there is no question of discharge of accused in summon case, it is either acquittal or dismissal u/s 203 Cr.P.C and the discharge of accused amounts to acquittal which is appealable order. As such, revision against discharge is not maintainable.
FIR No 524/05 ) PS Seelampur State Vs. Khursheed Alam, etc. 4 of 5
9. Admittedly, section 292 IPC provides a punishment of two years which is covered under summon trial and is to be governed by Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. As such, this revision is also not maintainable for the offences under section 292 IPC qua accused Vinod and Permanand. As such, the order of Ld. Trial Court thereby discharging the accused Khursheed Alam, Vinod and Permanand is not bearing any illegality or infirmity and the same is hereby affirmed. This revision is hereby dismissed. TCR be sent back to the concerned court with copy of order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (Devender Kumar) today on 20.10.2015. Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (NE) Karkardooma Court/Delhi FIR No 524/05 ) PS Seelampur State Vs. Khursheed Alam, etc. 5 of 5