SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 5.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) dismissing his plea to discharge him in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Others-II (1996) CCR (SC) 180 on account of delay caused in trial.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the respondent Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (for short the Complainant) to the effect that they were the registered owners/proprietors of the Copyright of two artistic works of "USHA" registered in their favour on 24.3.1970 and 13.9.1979 under the Copyright Act (for short "the Act") and thus had the exclusive right to reproduce the said artistic works in any material form. They found that the petitioners were manufacturing/selling electric churners (madhani) illegally using the logo "USHA" in the same artistic manner in which it was registered in the name of the complainant and the petitioner had thereby committed the criminal offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act and under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of that complaint, FIR No. 330/89 was registered at Police Station Kotwali and in due course a report under Section 173 of the Code was submitted against the petitioners. Initially a learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the case under Section 63 of the Act on 30.3.1991 and summoned the accused persons for 28.6.1991. However the offence was punishable with fine which was beyond his jurisdiction and the case was withdrawn by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and was assigned to the court of A.C.M.M. The petitioner appeared in that court on 1.7.1991. Since then the case has been adjourned from time to time and even charge has not been framed. The case was fixed for arguments on charge on 2.9.1996 when an objection was taken on behalf of the petitioners that the case was covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Common Cause (supra) and he was entitled to be discharged as even trial has not commenced after 5 years. The learned A.C.M.M. vide his order dated 5.10.1996 came to the conclusion that this case was not covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and rejected that plea. The petitioner being aggrieved against that order has filed the present petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inasmuch as the offence was punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and fine; that the delay was not for any cause attributable to the petitioner and since charge has not been framed the learned trial court acted illegally in not discharging the petitioner. He also contends that it is not a case falling in the category of "cheating" or of an "economic offence", inasmuch as the essential ingredient of inducement in a charge of cheating is not there and also this offence has no effect on the economy of the State.