OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURENDRA Kumar opposite party No. 1, filed a complaint Under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act against the Applicant Om Prakash Sharma and opposite party No. 2 Mahendra Pratap Garg and some others. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case. On 27 -1 -1970 accused Mahendra Pratap Garg moved an application for summoning two witnesses Under Section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure. This application was rejected by the Magistrate on the same day on the ground that adequate opportunity had already been given to the accused to produce the witnesses. Mahendra Pratap Garg moved another application on 30 -1 -1970 for the same relief. This application was allowed by the Magistrate on 31 -1 -1970. A revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, by Om Prakash Shartna, the co -accused. At the hearing oft this revision three points were urged before I Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, who heard the revision. The first point; was that the Magisterial had no jurisdiction in the matter as al reference ought to have been made to the Copy Right Board Under Section 6 of the Copy Right Act. This intention was rightly rejected by the Sessions Judge. A reference Under Section 6 is required to be made only when question arise Under Sections 3 and 5 of me Act, Section 6 has no relevance to a prosecution Under Section 63 of the Act.

(2.) THE second point urged was that a second application for examination of the same Witnesses Under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure was barred. This contention was also rightly rejected by the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge has rightly observed that both the orders of 17 -1 -1970 and of 31 -1 -1970, were in the nature of interlocutory orders and were not orders on the merits. The mere fact that at one stage the Magistrate did not consider it necessary to examine curtain witnesses Under Section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure did not preclude him from examining the witnesses Under Section 50 Code of Criminal Procedure at a later stage.

(3.) IN my opinion, the revision was rightly rejected by the Sessions Judge. This revision is without force and is hereby dismissed. The stay order is vacated.