Allowed

Prasad v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jun 2009Crl.MC/1965/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal miscellaneous case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in a copyright case. The court held that since the petitioner was out of India and the second accused who was in charge was already acquitted, continuation of proceedings was not in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The criminal case number C.C. No. 12/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, as against the petitioner is quashed.

Prasad Vs the State of Kerala — Intellectual Property | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1965 of 2009() ----------------------------------CC.12/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------PRASAD, S/O.MATHEW, PALLIYARADAYIL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, VELLIYAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR

¶3

RESPONDENT/STATE -------------------------------

¶4

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 31.

¶5

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI

¶6

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶7

rs.

¶8

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶9

================== Crl.M.C. No. 1965 of 2009

¶10

==================

¶11

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2009.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.12/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. Petitioner was originally the first accused in C.C.No.46/2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. Prosecution case is that on 29-12-2006 at 6.00 PM when the Sub Inspector conducted search in room No.VII/506 of Thodupuzha Municipality, pirated CDs. of films were found in the shop owned by the petitioner with second accused as the sales man and both the accused thereby committed offences under Sections 51 and 52A read with Sections 63 and 68A of Copy Right Act. As the petitioner was absconding, case as against him was split up and second accused was tried by the Magistrate. Under Annexure D judgment, second accused was acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to

¶14

Crl.M.C.No.1965/2009

¶15

-2-

¶16

quash C.C.No.12/2009, which is the split up case as against the petitioner, contending that as per Annexure C registered power of attorney dated 13-12-2006, petitioner entrusted the business to the second accused and on the date of seizure of the pirated CDs. petitioner had nothing to do with the business and therefore he is not liable for the offences.

¶17

Annexure B final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure along with Annexure D judgment establish that petitioner was not present at the shop when the search was conducted and pirated CDs. were seized on 29-12-2006. Second accused was the person, who was found in charge of the shop. Learned Magistrate under Annexure D judgment has already acquitted the second accused. Annexure C registered power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of second accused establish that petitioner as he has to leave India due to his employment in a foreign country and as he could not

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.1965/2009

¶19

-3-

¶20

conduct the business, petitioner entrusted the business with the second accused. Therefore from 13-12-2006, petitioner, who was admittedly out of India, has nothing to do with the business. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot be held liable for the offences committed on 29-12-2006 as he has no control over the affairs or business of the shop then. Moreover, second accused, who was put in charge of the business, was already acquitted. Hence, it is not in the interest of justice, to continue the proceedings as against the petitioner because there cannot be a conviction.

¶21

Petition is allowed. C.C.No.12/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, as against the petitioner is quashed.

¶22

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶23

dkr

Prasad v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venugopal and Others Vs E.K.Padmini and Others

Jose George Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Raghavan Achari Vs Puthiyakandam Gunavathi Action Committee

Raju & Others Vs State of Kerala

Saidalikutty Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Upendran Vs Shuhaib T.Mohammed