JAYANTILAL CHHAGANLAL PANCHAL Vs. SHIRISH SHANTILAL PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying that the process issued for the offence under Section 3 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Narol in Criminal Case No. 545 of 1985 be quashed and set aside. The contention that in view of the provisions of the Copyrights Act, 1957 no offence whatsoever is disclosed in the complaint, is not required to be gone into at this stage. The trial court on scrutiny of the complaint and on appreciation of evidence and on the basis of the deposition given by the complainant, has thought it fit to issue process under Section 63 of the said Act. Though the complaint was for offence under Section 63 of the Act and also for offences under Sections 405 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the trial court has issued process only under Section 63 of the Act. The contention of the petitioners -accused that on proper examination of the provisions of law, there will not be any offence at all, can very well be raised before the trial court. Determination of. this question on merits at this stage is likely to prejudice the case of the petitioners and/or that of the prosecution. Therefore, it is not desirable that further discussion on this point be made at this stage. The apprehension of the petitioners accused that they will be put to harassment is not well -founded. The presence of the accused is not to be insisted for by the trial court on each and every occasion of the hearing. The trial before a criminal court is required to be conducted within the presence and hearing of the accused. This is the right of an accused conferred by the Legislature.; This right of the accused cannot be turned into, in his obligation and it cannot be made an instrument of harassment and oppression. An accused may choose to remain absent at the time of trial and if the presence of the accused is not necessary for the further conduct of the trial, there is no reason why the court should not grant him exemption from remaining personally .present in Court. I am sure that the trial court will not insist for the presence of the accused on each and every occasion and if and when required it will direct the accused to remain present only when their presence is absolutely necessary for proceeding with the trial. In above view of the matter, the Counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the petition. Permission granted. Disposed of as withdrawn. Rule discharged. Order accordingly.