Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajveer Singh vs The State on 29 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. (R) No. 41/18
New Crl. (R) No. 204/2018
1. Sh. Rajveer Singh
S/o. Late Sh. Balram Singh
R/o. D220, Gali No.10,
Jagatpuri, Delhi.
............Revisionist
Versus
1. The State
2. Rajesh Mishra
R/o. D5, 2nd Floor,
Sector10, Noida, (U.P).
............Respondents
ORDER
1. This revision petition is preferred u/s. 397 r/w section 399 Cr.P.C against the order dt. 05.07.2018, passed by Sh. Vijay Kumar Jha, Ld. ACMM, Shahdara, in case FIR No.67/2012, PS. Jafrabad, titled State Vs. Vimal Dua & Ors. whereby charge U/s. 63/65 Copy Right Act & U/s. 420 IPC was directed to be framed against accused/ revisionist and was accordingly framed also. An application u/s. 5 of Limitation Act seeking CR No.204/2018 Page 1 of 5 Rajveer Singh Vs. The State & Anr. condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the revision petition was also filed alongwith the petition and vide order dt. 21.08.2018 delay was condoned.
2. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Arvind Nagar, Ld. Counsel for revisionist as also by Sh. K.P.Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
3. Ld. Counsel for revisionist argued that as per case of prosecution, revisionist was found binding pirated books and those pirated books were printed by coaccused Rahees at the instance of accused Vimal Dua, who has been discharged. Ld. Counsel for revisionist further argued that ingredients of section 63 of Copy Right are not attracted. It is further submitted that as per admitted case of the prosecution, revisionist was not found selling any pirated book and there is no question of inducement to anyone to purchase the pirated books by the revisionist to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, therefore, no case u/s. 420 IPC is made out against the revisionist.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that revisionist was in continuous touch with coaccused persons by mobile phone and call detail record of revisionist is filed on record. Ld. Addl. PP for State further argued that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
5. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the documents and statements of witnesses annexed with the chargesheet; that impugned order has been CR No.204/2018 Page 2 of 5 Rajveer Singh Vs. The State & Anr. passed without applying the mind to the facts and circumstances of the case; that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that no allegations of inducement has been leveled against the petitioner in the FIR and charge sheet and petitioner has not caused any wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to complainant; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that only allegation of book binding has been leveled against the petitioner and that there are no allegations of knowledge or intention of infringement of copyright on the part of petitioner; that Ld. Trial Court has already discharged the main accused Vimal Dua and that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that petitioner is not involved in any conspiracy with any other person for infringement of copyright or for causing wrongful loss to complainant.
6. Briefly, as per FIR, the facts relevant for disposal of present revision petition are that on 16.02.2012, a complaint was made by Sh. Rajesh Mishra constituted attorney of various publishers regarding manufacturing, printing, binding and selling of pirated books. On 15.03.2012, at the instance of complainant a raid was conducted at H.No.E 34, Gali No.2, Arjun Mohalla, Moujpur, Delhi, from where printed books, unfinished books, covers of printed books and some negative films were found and a person, who told his name as Rajveer Singh was found binding books of various authors. On enquiry, he told them that all the books and printed material belong to one Rahees, who has supplied the books and other printed material to him for binding. Rahees is also having his own printing press and a godown. All the books and printed material were CR No.204/2018 Page 3 of 5 Rajveer Singh Vs. The State & Anr. seized. Further investigation was carried out and coaccused persons i.e Rahees printer and Vimal Dua, who got the books printed through Rahess, were arrested.
7. Vide impugned order, Ld. Trial Court discharged coaccused Vimal Dua while observing that there is no sufficient material to frame charge against him and telephonic conversation does not conclusively indicates his involvement or conspiracy with other accused persons and against revisionist framed the charge u/s. 63/65 Copy Right Act and u/s. 420 IPC.
8. Section 51 of the Copy Right Act provides that copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed when any person
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work:
9. As per statement of complainant Rajesh Mishra recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C, when they reached at H.No.E34, Arjun Mohalla, Moujpur, one person was found binding the books, whose name was disclosed as Rajveer Singh and on enquiry he told that all these books and other printed CR No.204/2018 Page 4 of 5 Rajveer Singh Vs. The State & Anr. material belong to one Rahees S/o. Abdul Kadir. As per seizure memo, apart from books and material of different publishers, 14 negatives films of book "You Can Win" and 20 negative films of book "Aleph" were also recovered. It is not the case of prosecution that revisionist was keeping the recovered pirated books for sale or for the purpose of trade or he was publisher of those books. In absence of any allegation regarding selling & publishing of recovered books, charges u/s. 63 of Copy Right Act and u/s. 420 IPC are not attracted against the revisionist. As revisionist was found in possession of 14 negatives films of book "You Can Win" and 20 negative films of book "Aleph", prima facie, a case u/s. 65 of Copy Right Act is made out against the revisionist. Accordingly, present revision petition is partly allowed. A copy of this order be sent to Ld.Trial Court.
Revision file be consigned to record room. SANJEEV
KUMAR
MALHOTRA
Digitally signed by
SANJEEV KUMAR
MALHOTRA
Location: Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.11.29
Announced in the open court 16:04:21 +0530
on 29.11.2018 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
ASJ/FTC/ECOURT
Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
CR No.204/2018 Page 5 of 5 Rajveer Singh Vs. The State & Anr.