VENKATESH MURTHI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP, Mr. Maqbool Ahmed representing the State. Perused the records.

(2.) A case is registered by the 1st respondent against this petitioner in a criminal case in Crime No. 84/15 on the basis of first information lodged by the 2nd respondent -Shanwaz Khan, a resident of Humnabad Town, Bidar, on 30.4.2015. He is a cable operator running his business under the name and style Humnabad Networks at Humnabad. The gist of the allegations made in the first information lodged by the 2nd respondent on 30.4.2015 is that the petitioner is illegally transmitting DEN signals and is broadcasting programs of Udaya, Sony, Zee Colors, Discovery, DEN Sports and Star Networks. It is alleged that this petitioner has been doing this illegal transmission along with one Sajjan Tukaram who is also accused in the said case.

(3.) LEARNED HCGP, Mr. Maqbool Ahmed has vehemently argued that the investigation is in progress and the IO has written to the TV channels namely Udaya, Sony, Zee Colors, Discovery, DEN Sports and Star Networks seeking their views about the alleged illegal transmission of their signals by this petitioner. It is further submitted that replies are awaited and that the IO is making all honest efforts to conclude the investigation and to submit final report at the earliest. He has relied on a decision in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. AWADH KISHORE GUPTA AND OTHERS reported in : [2004] 1 SCC 691 to contend that annexures appended to the petition cannot be termed as 'evidence ' without being tested and proved, and therefore the said annexures could not have been acted upon by this court. He has relied on Section 70 of the Copyright Act which deals with cognizance of offences. As per Section 70, no court inferior to that of a metropolitan magistrate or a judicial magistrate of first class shall try any offence under this Act.