IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13140 of 2007 JITENDRA KUMAR @ GOPAL SON OF RAMJEE BABOO R/O CHOWK TOWAR GAYA P.S. KOTWALI DISTT. GAYA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 26.10.2010. On call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Earlier, the petition was dismissed due to non prosecution by order dated 11.7.2007. Subsequently, it was restored to its original file vide order dated 16.8.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11092 of 2009. I have heard Shri Chandrasen Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the materials available on record including the order of cognizance. The petitioner was made accused in Kotwali P.S. Case No.113 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 78 and 79 of the Copy Right Act and Sections 51, 63, 65 and 68A of the Trade and Merchandise Act and Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that after registering F.I.R., police investigated the case and thereafter, charge 2 N.H./ sheet was submitted. After submission of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate, on the basis of materials in the case diary, has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 63, 65 and 68A of the Copy Right Act, Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Act and Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The court is of the opinion that learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has committed no error. Moreover, the order of cognizance was passed long back in the year 2006. I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)