Antaryami Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner argues by urging two points, one is that no person has been described as an accused in the FIR and, for a moment, if the case against the Petitioner is taken into consideration, he being the employee of the firm, no criminal liability can be fastened upon him and secondly, the seizure of material itself would not establish that the copy right of the company has been infringed, rather no mark or identification of the complainant’s company being found in the seized article, no case under Section 63 of Copy Right Act is made out against the Petitioner.

Page 1 of 2

Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, learned AGA, however, on the other hand, submits that since the case is of the year 2013, it would be better that the petitioner be asked to pursue his remedy before the learned trial Court.

In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into consideration the year of registration of the case and keeping in view the submissions for the Petitioner being subject of trial, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the CRLMC granting liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy before the learned trial Court, who is requested to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ communication/ production of copy of this order. 5. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶19

Subhasmita

¶20

Page 2 of 2

Antaryami Majhi v. State of Odisha