JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner questions an order on charge made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 25.7.1995. He was charged of having committed offences under Section 63 of Copy Right Act,

(2.) The allegation in the First Information Report (FIR), made some time in 1993, was that the complainant/informant, alleged to own a factory manufacturing utensils in the trade and style of M/s. Monika Manufacturing Co. and also alleged owner of brand name "VISHAL", (having exclusive use of a registered copyright and prior user of a Trade Mark for the purpose), came to know that the petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Sarvodaya Metal Industries was infringing that copyright as well as the Trade Mark. On the basis of that FIR, investigations were conducted and eventually a charge sheet was filed. By the impugned order, the petitioner was charged with having committed the offence. The material portion of the order reads as under:

(3.) Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned senior counsel submits that the charges cannot stand and should be set aside because a previous civil litigation pending between the parties was withheld from consideration of the Court. It was contended that in the suit filed by the complainant, though an injunction was sought, it was declined. Learned counsel relied upon the copies of the two set of copyrights to say that there are material difference between the two and in these circumstances the court fell into error in forming a prima facie opinion that the copyright was infringed.