IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2377 of 2006() ------------------------- CC.388/2001 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:- -------------------------------------- 1. RAJASINGH, S/O.PONNUMUTHU, THIRUTHUVAPURATHU VEEDU, KANYAKUMARI. 2. ASOKAN, S/O.GANAPATHY, T.C.37/1271, MANACAUD, VANCHIYOOR. 3. HAREESH, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, T.C.36/1291, SWASTHIK HOUSE, PETTAH. 4. MANIKANTAN, S/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, T.C.36/1809, SUBHASH NAGAR, PETTAH. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.2377 of 2006. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010. O R D E R Petitioners are accused in CC.No.388/2001 on the file of the Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vanchiyoor Police Station filed a report before the lower court against the petitioners alleging offence under Section 52A and 68A of the Copy Right Act. Earlier, the petitioners filed a petition as Crl.MC.No.43/2002. That petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to advance a plea of discharge before the lower court. Accordingly, they moved the trial court by filing CMP.No.241/2006. By the impugned order dated 20.7.2006 that petition was dismissed. Assailing the said order, petitioners preferred this second round of petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl.M.C.No.2377 of 2006. -: 2 :- 2. Petitioners, according to the prosecution, were arrested while they cablecasting a film with title ‘Crime File’ at 10.15 p.m. on 30.2.2000. Accordingly, a case was registered and after investigation the final report was filed alleging the above offences. Petitioners would contend that there was failure on the side of the investigating officer to seize all equipments necessary for broadcasting the film and persons who had actually witnessed the film are not made party array. On the other hand, the Prosecution would contend that the material seized and evidence collected are sufficient enough to enter into a finding of guilty. Analyzing the contentions, the trial court in the order impugned observed: “Whether the materials are sufficient to enter in to a finding of guilt of the accused or not is a matter to be decided in trial. Whether the witnesses cited by the prosecution are sufficient to prove the offence is also a matter to be considered in trial. There is absolutely no reason to enter into a finding at this stage to the effect that the charge is groundless. The available materials would prima facie establish the ingredients of offence U/s.52(A) r/w.68(A) of Copy Crl.M.C.No.2377 of 2006. -: 3 :- Right Act.” 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor and perusing the report of the first respondent and also the order impugned, I find that the observation made by the trial court is absolutely correct. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, to telecast a film amplifier and modulator are also required. But the investigating officer had not at all seized those articles. The trial court correctly observed that whether the materials seized are sufficient to establish the telecasting of film or not is a matter of evidence. So also, the question as to whether the petitioners had telecasted the film or not is a matter of evidence. At present the allegations in the charge sheet/report of the first respondent, as observed by the trial court, prima facie establish materials to send the petitioners for trial. I find little reason to quash Annexure-A report or Annexure-C order. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is devoid of any Crl.M.C.No.2377 of 2006. -: 4 :- merit. Accordingly it is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to urge their defence before the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE KVS/-