- (1.) BY means of this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') petitioner - Santosh Kumar, has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 03.12.2014 passed by 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No. 0102811 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 151 of 2013, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 51/63 of the Copy right Act, Police Station Kotwali Krishna Nagar, District - Lucknow and Charge Sheet dated 10.07.2013 as well as entire further proceedings of above mentioned case.
(2.) THE case is related to alleged infringement of Copy Right and sale of duplicate Baby shop of Johnson and Johnson Company . The petitioner was allegedly involved in sale of duplicate Baby shop of Johnson and Johnson Company at his establishment styled as New Shandhani Provision Store, in Alambagh Market, Lucknow on 20.4.2013 when raided by a team of Johnson and Johnson Company headed by Amit Ghai Information Specialist. Recovery of 42 cartons of aforesaid Baby shop was made by the team and taken to Police Station Krishna Nagar. A FIR has been lodged under section 420 IPC and 51/63 Copy Right Act, 1957 by Amit Ghai in police station Krishna Nagar. After investigation a charge sheet under section 420 IPC and 63 read with section 51 of Copy Right Act 1957 has been filed. Court after taking cognizance of offence summoned the petitioner by the impugned order dated 3.12.2014. The Charge sheet and the order taking cognizance has been challenged in this petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged recovery is hit by section 64 of Copy Right Act as the same has not been effected by any police office having rank of Sub -inspector or more. The recovery alleged to have been made in presence of two police constables and one head constable and not in presence of an officer of Police not less than of rank of Sub -inspector. Consequently the entire prosecution is void. The Learned AGA contended that recovery of 42 cartons of baby shop is not denied but it has been contended that the same were recovered from the possession of one Sanjay who was let free under pressure of Vyapar Mandal, Lucknow and the same has been wrongly planted against the petitioner. It has been further contended that the offence is not only covered under the provisions of Copy Right Act but the petitioner is also charge sheeted under section 420 IPC, hence even if the recovery is not in accordance with section 64 of Copy Right Act 1957 even that prosecution under section 420 IPC cannot be quashed as all the necessary ingredients of such offence is made out.;