GHUREY LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the magistrate on 18.7.1962 on the application of the accused.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly are mat the complainant opposite party Ham Narain Pathak , filed a complaint at Bareilly against the applicants under as of the Copyright Act on the allegations that the complainant was the Manager, Printer and Publisher of Sri Kadhey Shyam Printing Press, Bareiiiy and had the copyright of printing, publishing and selling the book Known as 'Radhey shyam Kal Ramayana' written by Pandit Radhey shyam Kathawachak of Bareilly; that the accused were the owners of Deepak Jyoti Karyalaya Krishna Printing Press, Hathras, that the accused infringed the copyright of the said book by printing the same at their press at Hathras and also by publishing and selling' its copies at Bareiiiy and thus committed the offence at Bareilly as well.

(3.) When the accused appeared before the magistrate, they lodged an objection challenging the Jurisdiction of the Bareiiiy Court, which matter came right upto the High Court. This Court ultimately directed that the magistrate could decide the point of jurisdiction after affording the complainant an opportunity of making his statement on oath about the specific instances of publication of the book at Bareilly. Accordingly the complainant gave Ms statement before the magistrate on 1.4.1961, specifying the instances of publication and selling the infringing copies at Bareilly. However, the accused again felt dissatisfied and came to the High Court for the second time. By its order dated 10.10.1902 the High Court decided that the learned magistrate was Justified in coming to a tentative conclusion that he had Jurisdiction to try the case on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant his statement on oath and that there were at least two instances of the sale of the infringing copies at Bareilly one of the sales being to Dal Chand and the other to Shyam Lal. The High Court further directed that the magistrate would be at liberty to change his opinion when Dal Chand and Shyam Lal were examined.