HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition Nos.11057, 11058, 11059, 11060 and 11061 of 2013
Date: 01.08.2014
Crl. P. No.11057 of 2013:
Between:
Penumudi Venkata Rao .. Petitioner/ Accused.
AND The S.H.O., One Town L.& O. Police Station, Vijayawada-520 001, rep.by P.P., at High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition Nos.11057, 11058, 11059, 11060 and 11061 of 2013
COMMON ORDER:
These five criminal petitions are disposed of through this common order, as the petitioner/accused in all the cases is one and the same. The de facto complainant/second respondent in each of the cases is also more or less one and the same. T h e de facto complainant in C.C.Nos.1255 of 2007, 1243 of 2007 and 1241 of 2007 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada is the Central In-charge, Telugu Academy’s Regional Centre. Crl. Petition Nos.11057 of 2013, 11059 of 2013 and 11061 of 2013 arose in C.C.Nos.1255, 1243 and 1241 of 2007 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. In C.C.No.250 of 2004 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, the de facto complainant/second respondent is the Director of Telugu Academy. Criminal Petition No.11058 of 2013 arose from this case. Finally, C.C.No.718 of 2007 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada is a case in which Crl. Petition No.11060 of 2013 arose. In that case, the Manager (Accounts) in Telugu Academy on behalf of Telugu Academy is the second respondent/de facto complainant.
2. Thus, in all the cases, the de facto complainant is no other than the Telugu Academy.
The complaints are similar if not identical. The relief in each of the petitions is also identical that the Calendar Case in which the Criminal Petition arose seeks for the quashment of the Calendar Case. Consequently, it would be convenient and also appropriate to dispose of the five criminal petitions through a common order. Hence, this common order.
3. In C.C.No.1255 of 2007, the petitioner herein allegedly committed offences under Sections 63 and 64 of Copyright Act, 1957 and under Sections 78 and 79 of Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958. The complainant is the in-charge of Telugu Academy Regional Centre at Vijayawada. A complaint was lodged on 03.09.1999 by the Centre In-charge of the Academy before the Law and Order One Town Police Station, Vijayawada that the Academy has come to know that the petitioner herein who is the accused had been deceptively printing the intermediate first year group subject text books of Telugu medium without any authorization from the Academy in violation of Copyright Act. It was also alleged that the petitioner was cheating the consumers and was selling the books as if the books were published by the Telugu Academy.
4. On the same day, the Sub-Inspector of Police raided the shop of the petitioner styled as Amulya Publishers, Main Bazar, Vijayawada and seized 4,438 fake Telugu textbooks. The seized books comprised of Elements of Commerce, Economics, Zoology, Botony, Commerce and Accounting, Physics, Civics and History subjects. The books did not contain any trade mark. They were shown to have been printed and published by M/s. Amulya Publishers. It was recorded in the books that it was “according to A.P. Honourable High Court Order R & T CMP No.1436/1995 – 14362/1995 Amulya Publications, Vijayawada-1 has rights to publish and market 1st to 10th class and 2 years intermediate books”.
It was alleged that the colour of the cover page is deceptively similar to the Telugu Academy books.
The printing and marketing of books without any trade mark is a violation of Trade and Merchandise Act. Consequently, the petitioner/accused was charge sheeted for violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act and Trade and Merchandise Act.
5. In the charge sheet in C.C.No.250 of 2004 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, a complaint was lodged by the Director of Telugu Academy on 28.07.2000 by Ramgopal Police Station, Secunderabad that the complainant came to know that the petitioner, being the proprietor of M/s. Amulya Publishers, Vijayawada had been pirating Academy publications of Intermediate Telugu Academy text books and circulating the books for sale through his agents under the guise of the orders of the High Court. It was also alleged that two previous orders passed by the High Court were suspended by the High Court granting liberty to the Director of the Academy to seize all the pirated books published by M/s. Amulya Publications, Vijayawada.
6. The Director of Telugu Academy alleged that the Academy came to know that the petitioner was sending the proposals of pirated books from Vijayawada to Hyderabad through M/s. Bharat Motor Parcel Services, Nallakunta branch, Hyderabad. On the basis of such a report, it is alleged that police raided the office of the parcel service and seized three bundles of pirated books of Intermediate Telugu medium sent by the petitioner. The books seized belonged to 18 different subjects. On the basis of the investigation, charge sheet was laid under Section 420 IPC for cheating the consumers that the books were Telugu Academy books. The petitioner was also charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 63 & 64 of Copyright Act and Sections 78 & 79 of Trade and Merchandise Act.
7. C.C.No.1243 of 2007 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada is in respect of the raid conducted on 03.09.1999 on printing press of the petitioner situate at Tirumalaiah Street, Tailorpet, Vijayawada. The allegations are similar to the allegations in the charge sheet as in C.C.No.1255 of 2007.
The petitioner was charge sheeted for the offences under Section 420 IPC and under Sections 63 & 64 of Copyright Act and under Sections 78 & 79 of Trade and Merchandise Act.
8. C.C.No.422 of 2004 was a case filed before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada alleging that on 28.07.2000, the Manager (Accounts) of Telugu Academy lodged a complaint on behalf of Telugu Academy at Santoshnagar Police Station. On a petition in Crl.M.P.No.4650 of 2000 in Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2000, this Court ordered that all the alleged pirated books published by M/s. Amulya Publishers of Vijayawada were to be seized. Various books were seized and investigation was revealed that the print, publish and distribution of the books were in violation of the provisions of Copyright Act and Trade and Merchandise Act and also that the petitioner cheated the consumers in the process. Consequently, charge sheet was issued under Section 420 IPC and under Sections 63 & 64 of Copyright Act and under Sections 78 & 79 of Trade and Merchandise Act. The charge sheet was issued by I Town Police Station, Law and Order, Vijayawada. The case was subsequently transferred to the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and was renumbered as C.C. No.718 of 2007.
9. A case was registered by the I Town Police Station, Vijayawada against the petitioner and others under Section 420 IPC and under Sections 63 & 64 of Copyright Act and under Sections 78 & 79 of Trade and Merchandise Act, which was numbered as C.C.No.386 of 2004 by II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. A complaint was lodged by the Centre In-charge of the Telugu Academy’s Regional Centre, Vijayawada on 21.06.2002 that the petitioner was printing and publishing pirated books and was also cheating the consumers. A charge sheet was laid on the basis of such a complaint which was numbered as C.C.No.386 of 2004. The case was subsequently transferred to III Metropolitan Magistrate and was renumbered as C.C.No.1241 of 2007.
10. As already noticed, the petitioner seeks for quashment of these cases. It may be noticed that a common thread runs through all the complaints.
The case of the de facto complainant(s) is that the petitioner was publishing the books of Telugu Academy through his publication agency by name M/s. Amulya Publications, distributing the same as if the books were his own publication and slyly misguiding the public through the cover design and the contents of the books as if there was consent as well as the endorsement in the books referring to an order of High Court as if the petitioner was publishing Telugu Academy books and that the petitioner thus violated the provisions of the Copyright Act as well as the Trade and Merchandise Act and also duped the consumers thereby cheating the consumers.
11. The petitioner is the sole accused in all the cases except in C.C.No.1241 of 2007 (the former case number being C.C.No.386 of 2004 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada). In C.C.No.1241 of 2007 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, the petitioner is A.1. The petitioner conducted the cases as a party-in-person. In the petitions, the petitioner contended while explaining the delay in filing these quash petitions that the advocates engaged by him had been influenced by the de facto complainants and the police officers and that he was put on the wrong track through deliberate incorrect advices by the advocates. He submitted that in view of the malpractices committed by the advocates against him, he had no alternative but to conduct cases all by himself. The question is whether the criminal cases are liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned, while the petitioner has been conducting the cases as a party-in-person is beside the legal question.
12. It is contended by the petitioner that the books published by him were written by him with his personal knowledge and with the assistance, guidance and help by his friends who are subject experts. He contended that in fact the Telugu Academy had tried and had violated his copyright and copied the contents of his books extensively and that the Telugu Academy is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for violating his copyright and is also punishable for its illegal acts.
13. The complaints were lodged in 1999.
The charge sheets in all the cases were filed in 2004. The present batch of petitions was filed in 2013, nearly 9 years after the filing of the charge sheets and about 14 years after registration of the FIRs. It would appear that the petitioner is aware of this shortcoming. He explained the delay in filing the petitions. The first contention in this context is that all advocates engaged by the petitioner sailed with the complainant and instead of prosecuting his cases diligently, they have been pressuring the petitioner to settle the matters with the de facto complainant, so much so, the petitioner is forced to conduct the cases all by himself. I am afraid that the claim of the petitioner that the advocates represented by him have not cooperate with him and that he therefore started conducting the cases as a party-in-person cannot be a ground to contend the abnormal delay in filing these petitions.
14. The petitioner inter alia submitted that he did not have legal knowledge and that he did not have acquaintance in legal English and that he could not file the complaints without any delay. Just as the maxim “ignorentia juris non excusat”, not having legal knowledge and knowledge of legal English cannot be grounds to exonerate the petitioner regarding the abnormal delay in invoking due process of law. If the petitioner did not have legal knowledge, he is expected to take legal help.
If the petitioner considers that advocates engaged by him connived with the prosecution, the petitioner ought to have approached the Legal Services Authority for redressal. The petitioner cannot, however, claim that he approached this Court on account of those short falls on the part of the counsel for the petitioner.
15. The petitioner failed to explain properly the abnormal delay in filing these petitions for the quashment of the cases. Albeit there is no rule of limitation for petitions for quashment of the cases, the petitioner is expected to approach the Court within a reasonable time. As the petitioner approached the Court about 14 years after registration of the FIRs and about 9 years after filing of the charge sheets, the petitions per se are liable to be dismissed as belated.
16. Regarding the merits of the case, the petitioners submitted that he filed O.S.No.14 of 1999 on the file of the District Court, Machilipatnam and also submitted that he obtained temporary injunction through orders in I.A.No.223 of 2005. Be it noted that there is no temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner permitting him to publish various text books printed and published by the Telugu Academy, verbatim reproducing the same. The petitioner contended that the books in question are the product of his sweat and blood and that they were copied by the Telugu Academy. It is a question of fact whether the petitioner committed any offence by violating the copyright of Telugu Academy and whether Telugu Academy in fact violated the copyright of the petitioner. Such questions of fact, I am afraid, cannot be dealt with in a petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C.
17. The petitioner submitted that any judgment convicting him in this case may work out as conflicting decisions if the petitioner obtained a decree in the civil Court and is convicted at the same time by the criminal court. The dispute in the civil Court is quite distinct from the dispute in the criminal court where the theory of mens rea plays a role. I, therefore, do not agree with the petitioner that judicial discipline requires the quashment of these petitions.
18. The petitioner contended that the continuation of cases would be violation of principles of natural justice. I am afraid that the petitioner is going by the assumption that the books published by him were his property, whereas it is the dispute in the criminal cases. In that view of the matter, continuation of cases would not be tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice. Viewed in any angle, I consider that these are not appropriate cases where the criminal cases deserve to be quashed nor is it the stage at which Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked on account of unsatisfactorily explained delay. I, therefore, see no merits in any of these petitions.
19. These Criminal Petitions, accordingly, are dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in these Criminal Petitions, shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.
Date: 01.08.2014 Isn