IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application no.244 of 2009 Stay Application No.245 of 2009 In CRIMINAL REVISION NO.40 OF 2009 Sanjay Kumar Seth ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…... Respondents Dated: October 4, 2010 Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This is delay condonation application no.244 of 2009. There is delay of some 195 days in filing the present revision. The delay has sufficiently been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the present revision is condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This criminal revision, preferred under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the charge dated 23.5.2008 framed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar against the applicant under Section 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 (for short, the Act) in criminal case no.1876 of 2007, State v. Sanjay Kumar Seth. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Satendra Kumar Saini lodged a report against the revisionist on 11.9.2006 at 8:30 PM at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar alleging therein that the revisionist has illegally used the photograph of Swami Ram Dev in cards, CDs, DVDs and in front page of book and has also illegally used the name of Swami Ram Dev on internet for the purpose of selling his goods. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses and collected evidence against the revisionist and on completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the revisionist under Section 63 the Act. On the basis of the charge sheet, learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence against the revisionist and thereafter a criminal case no.1876 of 2007 was registered in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar and subsequently criminal proceedings were initiated against him. Thereafter, on 23.5.2008, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, framed the charge of offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act against the revisionist. Against the said charge dated 23.5.2008, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the charge u/s 63 of the Act has wrongly been framed against the applicant. I do not find force in the argument put forth by learned counsel for the revisionist. It is settled legal position that on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charge the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. I am fortified in my view with the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Soma Chakravarty vs. State (Th.CBI)” reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3683. Paras-19 and 20 are relevant to mention here, which reads as under:- “19. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions of this Court in Union of India and another vs. Major J.S. Khanna etc. 1972 (3) SCC 873; State of Maharashtra and others vs. Som Nath Thapa and others, 1996 (4) SCC 659 and L Chandraiah vs. State of A.P. and another, 2003 (12) SCC 670 and contended that before framing the charges the court must have some material on the 2 basis of which it can come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. In our opinion there was such material before the Court while framing the charge. 20. It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as mentioned in the above decisions, is that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.” In view of the above-said discussion and as per above-quoted judgment, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned charge dated 23.5.2008 framed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. For the reasons recorded above, the revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. (Stay Application No.245 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Dharam Veer, J.) 4.10.2010 RG 3