DAVID PON PANDIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions coming on for hearing on Friday twenty second day of December 2000 upon perusing the petition and the Memo Grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A.D. Jagdish Chandra Advocate for the petitioners in all petitions and of Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on behalf of the respondent and having stoodover for consideration till this day the Court made the following order:- This Criminal Original Petition has arisen in this way:- M/s. A.V.M. Productions Limited Madras, produced a Tamil Feature film titled "Sethupathi I.P.S." They took 83 Prints of the picuture. To avoid video piracy they had made special marks in each of the prints in certain frames of the him. Later, it came to light that the same film was being screened in Television in Ambur and the Ambur Taluk Police registered a case in Crime No. 36 of 1994 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Film in T.V. Screen through V.C.R. (Regulation Act) 1984 and Cinematograph Act, 1952 and arrested one Murali of Balaji Video on 24-1-1994. The investigation revealed that cassettes have emerged from print No. 64 of the aforesaid film. Print No. 64 was delivered to the distributors M/s. Golden Pictures, Tirunelveli. M/s. Golden Pictures, Tirunelveli in turn entrusted the same with M/s. Raj Cine Complex Private Limited Tuticorin for exhibition of the picture on 13-1-1994. M/s. Raj Cine Complex Private Limited are running three theatres under the name and style of Raj. Mini Raj and Cine Raj. The film was exhibited for public view in Cine Raj Theatre from 14-1-1994 to 21-1-1994 and subsequently at Raj Theatre from 22-1-1994 onwards. Therefore, a case in Crime No. 1 of 1994 was registered by the C.B.C.I.D. and the investigation revealed that the pirated video cassettes were available in the market in Palayamkottai, Ambur and Tiruchirappalli etc. The investigation revealed that the petitioners herein had created video cassettes from and out of the print No. 64 in pursuance of the conspiracy between them. At the instance of the Director General of Police the case in Crime No. 36 of 1994 of the Ambur Police Station was transferred to the C.B.C.I.D. to be clubbed with Crime No. 1/94. Accordingly the respondent investigated the crime and filed charge-sheet before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Under Section 120(B) IPC read with Section 406 IPC. Sections 63 and 68 (A) of the copywrite Act 1957, Section 406 IPC and Section 406 IPC read with Section 109 IPC against the accused which the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras took cognizance, of the C.C. No. 11626 of 1999 on 22-12-1999 and the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai framed charges against the accused on 11-4-2000. At this stage, the accused filed petition under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking discharge on the ground that the offence alleged to have been committed in various places of Tamil Nadu which does not include the city of Madras and therefore, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras has no Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it was also the case of the petitioners herein that taking cognizance of the case is barred by limitation as per the provision of Section 473 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate heard the matter, but dismissed the same on the ground that at the time of framing of charges the accused had an opportunity to make their submissions and having failed to do so they cannot now seek discharge.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners herein that even as per the prosecution case, the offence is purported to have been committed at Tutitcorin and the pirated cassettes were made available for sale at Tiruchy, Palaykottai and Ambur, but there is no evidence to show that the cassettes were available for sale at Madras for the C.B.C.I.D. to file the chargesheet before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.

(3.) It is also contended that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Madras ought not to have taken cognizance of the matter. According to them, the offences are all punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of three years. They have contended that the offence is said to have been committed between 13-1-1994 and 24-1-1994. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has taken the charge-sheet on 22-12-1999 after a lapse of five years. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners cited three authorities viz., State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh Am v. State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Coimbatore and Arun Vyas v. Anitha Vyas.