RAJESH MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated December, 19, 1994 whereby the petitioner stands charged with the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and under Sections 63, 64 and 68A of the Copy Right Act, 1957.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on June 22, 1994 at about 2.15 P.M. when Shri Prahlad Singh SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and his party happened to reach near the Law College Premises they noticed the petitioner going on the road with a V.I.P. suite -case. They checked the petitioner and on a search of his suit -case discovered 36 Video Cassets therefrom. None of the Cinematograph films in those Video Cassets was certified for exhibition by the Board of Film Certification (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). While 34 cassets contained cinematograph film of various feature films, dramatic performances etc., two of them did not contain any visual images. Being of the opinion that the 34 uncertified films were meant for exhibition at any place and the remaining two which did not contain visual images were meant for making copies from other films, Shri Prahlad Singh seized all the video Cassets and arrested the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and under Sections 63, 64 and 68A of the Copy Right Act, 1957 After completing the investigation he charge -sheeted the petitioner accordingly. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Cum - Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur took cognizance of those offences against the petitioner on August 31, 1994 and after hearing the parties charged him with those offences on December, 19, 1994. On his pleading not guilty to the charges framed against him, the petitioner is now facing his trial in the Court of the learned Magistrates.

(3.) IT is settled law that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exceptional power which should be very sparingly and cautiously exercised to prevent manifest injustice being caused or to abuse the process of the Court. It is also well settled that though in view of the object to be achieved the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is quite wide yet where there is a specific provision in the Code or in any other law to achieve the desired remedy, the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not ordinarily be exercised. In view of this settled position of law, this petition is treated as an application under Section 397 Cr.P.C.