Dharam Pal vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Dharam Pal petitioner who is proprietor of Bobby Book Depot Malerkotla, Sangrur has invoked the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing First Information Report No. 85 dated 22.5.1991 registered at Police Station Malerkotla under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 63 and 68 of the Copy Right Act.

Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 20.6.1990 Manager, Text Book Sale Depot, Punjab School Education Board Sangrur, sent a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police Sangrur to the effect that he had inspected the shop of the petitioner on three occasions and every time the petitioner was found in possession of fictitious books i.e. Nawin Punjabi Pustak, Math3 Punjabi, Hindi Preveska and Punjabi Preveska. So necessary action may be taken against him. On receipt of this letter the Senior Superintendent of Police held a discussion with Shri Zora Singh, Manager Text Book Sales Depot Sangrur, and found that School Board printed and published books for students with reserve copyrights. During surprise checking by the officials of the Punjab School Education Board M/s. Bobby Book Depot Malerkotla was found in possession of forged books for sale other than those published by the Punjab School Education Board. He had thus cheated the students and the School Board and had committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 484, 486 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66 and 68 of the Copy Right Act. Station House Officer, Police Station, Malerkotla was, therefore, asked to register a case which was actually registered on 22.5.1991.

The petitioner alleged that he sold old and new books in his shop as also stationery articles. He purchased the books for sale from the whole sellers as well as from the students. He had not got printed or published any forged book nor he had violated any property mark. The allegations made in the First Information Report did not disclose the commission of any offence and prima facie no case was made out against him. His premises were raided by the officials of the School Education Board in April, 1989 and March, 1990 whereas the First Information Report was registered on 22.5.1991 and this delay was not explained. The apparent reason for delay was that no case was made out but subsequently at the instance of interested persons the case was registered in a mala fide manner.

In the return filed by the respondent, it was maintained that the petitioner was not an authorised agent of the Punjab School Education Board for the sale of the books published by the Board. During raid conducted by the officials of Punjab School Education Board he was found in possession of the books which had not been published by the Board but were bearing the name and style of the Punjab School Education Board in violations of the provisions of Copy Right Act. Expert opinion had been obtained and books were found to be forged. The offences under Sections 484 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code were also added in the challan prepared against the petitioner and sufficient evidence had been collected on record to connect the petitioner with the crime.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that First Information Report was liable to be quashed as the allegations made therein did not disclose the commission of any offence. The case was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code but ingredients of any of these offences were not spelled out from the averments made in the First Information Report. So also the petitioner was not prima facie liable for the infringement of Copy Right Act, 1957. This contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. It is an admitted fact that School Education Board published the Text Books for the students and the Board had also appointed various agents for the sale of those books. The petitioner also applied to the Board for making him an authorised agent for the sale of books prescribed by the Punjab School Education Board but so far he had not been appointed as an agent. The officials of the School Education Board inspected the premises of the persons who sold books and the petitioner was one of them. As per averments made in the First Information Report his shop was checked thrice and each time he was found having books which were actually not published by the School Education Board but which purported to be a publication by the Board. During investigation of the case expert opinion was stated to have been obtained and the books found in possession of the petitioner were not found to be genuine books published by the School Education Board. So the offences under Sections 484/486 of the Indian Penal Code were also added later on. Section 484 deals with counterfeiting a mark used by a public servant and Section 486 with selling goods marked with a counterfeit property mark. At the time of framing of the charge the trial court will take into consideration the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and will charge the petitioner for only those offences for which sufficient grounds are revealed for proceeding against him. The First Information Report in question cannot be quashed at this initial stage simply on the ground that ingredients of some of the offences mentioned therein are not spelled out from the allegations made by the complainant.

For the reasons recorded above I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.