VIVEKANANDAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-police filed a final report against the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The case is pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in C.C. No. 8085 of 2006 and the allegation against the petitioner by the prosecution is that the omnibus operators, without the permission of the producers, have executed the films, which has not been given any copyright and thereby, they violated the provisions of the Copyright Act.

(2.) Totally, there are two accused in this case and both the accused, after issuance of the summons, appeared before the Trial Court and filed a petition to discharge them on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation as per the provision under Section 468 (2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and aggrieved by the said order, only the first accused has preferred the criminal revision before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maximum punishment, provided under the Copyright Act for an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act. is only three years' imprisonment and as such. the period of limitation for filing the final report as per Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is three years. The date of occurrence in this case is 13.08.2003 and on the same day the First Information Report was registered and the final report was filed only on 28.12.2006 with a delay of 137 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner strangely holding that the issue could be decided only after the examination of the witnesses in the trial giving opportunity to the Investigating Agency. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has got right to raise an objection even at the initial stage, since the taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate is illegal.