ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the petitioner has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to Opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Kotwali PS Case No. 337 of 2000 under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and section 63 of the Copyright Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this application are that petitioner is the Circulation Officer of M/s Chronical Publications Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi and on 19.9.2000 he had come to Patna in connection with some work of the Company when he learnt that some persons after making duplicate copies and printing several hundreds of those copies of several publications having good reputation in the market published under the authority of the Company of the petitioner were selling the same in the market. On enquiry he came to know that the books on the subject of history and general knowledge, both in question and answer forms after preparing duplicate copies were being sold by opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 in the market. The petitioner filed a written complaint in Kotwali Police Station on 19.9.2000 and Kotwali P.S Case No. 337 of 2000 under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B IPC and 63 of Copyright Act was registered (Annexure -1). During the course of investigation hundreds of duplicate copies of books allegedly printed and published by the Company of petitioner were recovered from several places and from the custody of opposite party nos. 2 to 9 who were arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, who granted bail to them by his orders dated 25.9.2000 and 26.9.2000. According to the petitioner, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna granted bail to Opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 under mistaken impression that only offence under section 63 of Copyright Act was made out which is, in his opinion, bailable, whereas the fact is that this offence is non -bailable and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, did not consider the fact that allegations attracted section 468 IPC also.

(3.) OPPOSITE party Nos. 2 to 9 have appeared by filing vakalatnama and two separate counter affidavitsone on behalf of Opposite party nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8 and another on behalf of Opposite party no. 7. Opposite party nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8 in their counter affidavit have stated that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna after considering the allegations made in the FIR and the materials placed before him and after hearing the counsel of parties including the informant -petitioner and after being satisfied that it was the case for grant of bail, granted bail to opposite parties. Their further case is that although case was registered under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B IPC besides section 63. of Copyright Act but on bare perusal of the FIR shows that allegations are mainly with regard to violation of the provisions of Copyright Act and prosecution launched against them by petitioner is malafide, concocted and false. According to these opposite parties, the Company of petitioner publishes magazines, journals and books for competitive examinations and in order to get a foot -hold in the State of Bihar the Company contacted opposite party no. 2 and requested him to distribute the magazines, journals and books published by the Company and it started its business transactions through opposite party no. 2 from the year 1992 and opposite party no. 2 used to send money being the sale price of books and magazines as well as advance to three firms, namely, Chronical Publication Pvt. Ltd., Chronical Publication and Delhi Book Manufacturing Company and opposite party no. 2 has advanced a sum of Rs. 3,01,000/ - through bank draft to Chronical Publication in the name of Delhi Book Manufacturing Company which has not been accounted for yet and he has also advanced a sum of Rs. 4,02,100/ - to Chronical Publication for supply of magazines but the magazines have not been supplied and company of petitioner has misappropriated the money of opposite party no. 2. Besides this, opposite party no. 2 by two separate bank drafts on 5.9.2000 and 6.9.2000 has paid in advance a sum of Rs. 90,000/ - to Chronical Publication for sending magazines and thereafter it raised protest for not accounting the advance to the company. According to these opposite parties, opposite party no. 2 has given a legal notice through his lawyer to the company of petitioner for payment of excess money taken by it without supplying magazines and books. These opposite parties have refused allegations of indulging in printing or duplication of any book, magazine, journal of the company of petitioner. They also denied the allegations of petitioner that they gave threatening to petitioner or proprietor of the company of petitioner or to any of its staff or witness. They have prayed for rejecting the prayer of petitioner.