- (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Dhanwar P.S case no.84 of 1987 including the order dated 11.5.2007 whereby and whereunder the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act as well as under Section 7/14 of the Cinematography Act and also under Section 16 of the Bihar Entertainment Act against the petitioners. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the F.I.R is that the petitioners no.1 to 4, namely, Umesh Sao, Surendra Sao, Anand Modi and Brahmdeo Sao were displaying a film in a Video Hall to the public without having licence by selling tickets, on which tax had never been paid. On such allegation, a case was registered as Dhanwar P.S. Case no.84 of 1987. The matter was taken up for investigation. After more than 19 years. The police submitted charge sheet not only against the occupier but also against other persons under Sections 420 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act as well as under Section 7/14 of the Cinematography Act and also under Section 16 of the Bihar Entertainment Act . Thereupon the court took cognizance of the offence, vide order dated 11.5.2007 for the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted against all the persons. That order is under challenge. Mr.A.K.Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that accepting the entire allegations to be true, no offence is made out either under Section 420 or 414 of the Indian Penal Code or even under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act as there have been absolutely no ingredients for constituting these offences Act and therefore, the court did commit illegality in taking cognizance of the offences under the aforesaid sections against the petitioners.
(2.) IT was further submitted that so far the offence under section 16 of the Bihar Entertainment Act and also under Section 7/14 of the Cinematography Act is concerned, the petitioners other than petitioners no.1 to 4, in any event, cannot be said to have committed aforesaid offences as they never happen to be the occupier of the Video Hall nor they have been alleged to have been displaying film, rather they are the employees of the petitioners no.1 to 4 who had employed them in run the Video Hall and thereby the court has also committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners no.5 to 13 under the Cinematography Act and also under the Bihar Entertainment Act and thereby the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State and taking into account the allegation upon which F.I.R has been lodged, no offence either under Section 414, 420 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act is made out against the petitioners.
(3.) SO far the offences under Section 16 of the Bihar Entertainment Act and also under Section 14 of the Cinematography Act is concerned, those offences seem to be attracted against the petitioners no.1 to 4 whereas the petitioners no.5 to 13 are concerned, they are not the persons who were getting the film exhibited rather they were the employees of the petitioners no.1 to 4 who were the persons responsible for exhibiting the film in Video Hall without having any licence by selling the tickets upon which tax had not been paid and thereby the court seems to have committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences under Section 16 of the Bihar Entertainment Act and also under Section 7/14 of the Cinematography Act against the petitioners no.5 to13. Accordingly it is quashed.;