Court No. - 75
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 5603 of 2003 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Gupta And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
This government appeal has been preferred along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.7.2003 passed by I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.3966 of 2002 arising out of case crime no.163 of 2000 under Section 292 IPC and 63 & 68-A Copy Right Act, P.S. Anwar Ganj, District Kanpur Nagar.
Accused-respondents were convicted and sentenced on the basis of their confessional statement for the offence punishable under Section 292 IPC and 63 & 68-A Copy Right Act. Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order imposed imprisonment for the period already undergone and a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of 7 days was also ordered.
Learned A.G.A. argued that punishment imposed upon the accused- respondent is lesser. Maximum punishment for the offence under Section 292 IPC is of 2 years and a fine which may extend to Rs.2000/-. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is illegal. Hence, prayer has been made to grant leave to appeal and to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
I have considered the submissions raised by learned A.G.A.
Accused-respondents were languishing in jail. Trial Court imposed punishment of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs.1000/-. If the provisions of Section 292 IPC as well as Sections 63 & 68-A Copy Right Act are taken into consideration, when no minimum sentence is provided, punishment imposed by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences cannot be termed to be illegal or lesser. Learned A.G.A. was also not able to show any previous conviction of the respondents for the same offences. No illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned judgment and order.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 315 has held as under.
"It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence."
In the case of Gangabhavani Versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 298, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under.
"This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
Thus, the application moved by the appellant - State to grant leave to appeal for the reason discussed here-in-above is not liable to be allowed and same is rejected.
Since the application for grant of leave to appeal is rejected, the appeal is also not liable to be admitted and same is dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 ss