ROOP SHANKER Vs. MUSTIYAK AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision raises an interesting point whether the accused who has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sec. 482, I.P.C., can again be punished under Sec. 93 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in detail and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The offence relates to the year 1968. The learned Magistrate, of course, has held that the ingredients of the offence under both the sections are the same, and therefore, the accused could not be punished twice over again. However, I am not inclined to examine this point, because, in my opinion, the revisional jurisdiction need not be invoked because of the trivial nature of the offence, and further because of the fact that it was committed as back as in the year 1968.

(3.) In the result, the revision petition is, dismissed. Revision dismissed.