Delhi District Court
Gian Chand S/O. Shri Yad Ram vs State Of Delhi on 17 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
- 01 (EAST) :KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Crl. Rev. No. 248/13
Gian Chand S/o. Shri Yad Ram,
R/o. 5C, Kothi No. 1,
Court Road, Civil Lines,
Delhi54
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Delhi ... Respondent
ORDER
1. Vide this petition order impugned is dated 23.7.13 vide which charge u/s. 63/65 of the Copy Right Act and u/s. 201 IPC was given to the petitioner/accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. Heard arguments of Sh. J.G. Garg, Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Maqsood Ahmad, Ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent. Perused the grounds of revision and the trial Court record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.4.01 SI Vijay Pal Singh received information that at house No. 76, Patpar Ganj, Delhi NCERT Books are unauthorizedly published. He reached there and factory owner i.e accused met him there. At the ground floor of the factory an Off Set Press and printed material of NCERT and other publishers, in finished and unfinished form was found. On 2 nd and 3rd floor printed material of NCERT was found. On demand accused failed to produce any authority to print NCERT material. The videography of the material lying on all the three floors was done. Since it was 9.30 Crl. Rev. No. 248/13 page 1 of page 4 p.m and next day was gazetted holiday, the gate of the factory was locked. One key was handed over to the accused and other was handed over to Ct. Karamvir. Ct. Karamvir was deputed to keep a watch at the factory. The expert team of NCERT told that there is no authorized press at B76, Patpar Ganj. Thereafter on 5.4.01 at 10.20 p.m it was reported that lock of the premises at B76 Patpar Ganj was broken and accused was doing some activity inside. SI Vijay Pal reached at the spot and accused was found present there. All the NCERT printing material was found missing. Accused admitted that he had sent all the printed material to Muzaffar Nagar. Some CBSE books were seized from there as a sample. Accused was arrested and was taken on P/C remand. Accused got recovered the bags containing books from house No. B76, Patpar Ganj Village, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI and house No. C246, Gali No. 11, Bhajan Pura.
4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence on record regarding recovery of NCERT books on 1.4.01 and 5.4.01 from premises No. B76, Patpar Ganj and C246, Gali No. 11, Bhajan Pura. It is stated that no document regarding ownership of premises at Bhajan Pura has been brought on record and no action against Ct. Karamvir has been taken by the police. It is stated that accused is resident of Court Lane, Civil Lines and no recovery was affected from his residence. It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court committed error of law by framing charge against the petitioner. Per contra Ld. Addl. PP for the state/respondent submitted that there is recovery of NCERT books unauthorizedly published from the factory premises of accused and at his instance from Bhajan Pura. It is stated that accused had shifted the books sealed by the IO on 1.4.01 at the premises at Patpar Ganj with the sole object to destroy evidence Crl. Rev. No. 248/13 page 2 of page 4 against him.
5. There is seizure memo dated 5.4.01 on record, as per which from the house of accused at 1, Civil Lines, Court Road certain material i.e. unfinished books title cover of books etc. were recovered. As per the seizure memo dated 11.8.01, 379 bags of unauthorized published material was seized from house No. B76, Village Patpar Ganj which was in possession of the accused. Seizure memo dated 1.4.01 is about recovery of unauthorized finished and unfinished material pertaining to NCERT and putting the lock at the factory premises. Various other books were seized from premises No. B76 as per seizure memo dated 7.4.01 and 8.4.01.
6. There are inspection reports dated 9.4.01 and 10.04.02 of Production Officer and Dy. Secretary, CBSE, as per which various seized material was found to be pirated. As per the letter dated 6.8.02 of Dharam Pal Singh, Dy. Secretary of CBSE, accused is not authorized to print CBSE books.
7. At the stage of framing of charge Court is only required to see existence of prima facie case. The reliance is placed upon in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC page 4.
8. In State of Bihar V. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018, while referring to Section 227 of the Code , the Supreme Court observed:
" If the scales as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are even at the conclusion of the trial, then on the theory of benefit of doubt the case must end in the acquittal of the accused; but if, on the other hand, the scales are even at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation, ordinarily and generally the order will have to be made under Section 228 and Crl. Rev. No. 248/13 page 3 of page 4 not under section 227."
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no substance in the various grounds seeking discharge raised by accused. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( SANJAY GARG )
on 17.04.2014 Addl. Sessions Judge01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Crl. Rev. No. 248/13 page 4 of page 4