Honble KHAN, J. – This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated December 19, 1994 whereby the petitioner stands charged with the offences punishable under section 7 of the Cinema to graph Act, 1952 and under sections 63, 64 & 68A of the Copy Right Act, 1957. (2). The relevant facts are that on June 22, 1994 at about 2.15 P.M. when Shri Prahlad Singh SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and his party happened to reach near the Law College Premises they noticed the petitioner going on the road with a V.I.P. suite-case. They checked the petitioner and on a search of his suit-case discovered 36 vedio Cassets therefrom. None of the Cinematograph films in those video Cassets was certified for exhibition by the Board of Film Certification (hereinafter referred to as the Board). While 34 cassets contained cinematography film of various feature films, dramatic performances etc., two of them did not contain any visual images. Being of the opinion that the 34 uncertified films were meant for exhibition at any place and the remaining two which did not contain visual images were meant for making copies from other films, Shri Prahlad Singh seized all the vedio Cassets and arrested the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Cinematoraph, Act 1957 and under Sections 63, 64 and 68 A of the Copy Right Act, 1957. After com- pleting the investigation he charge-sheeted the petitioner accordingly. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur took cognizance of those offences against the petitioner on August 31, 1994 and after hearing the parties charged him with those offences on December, 19,1994. On his pleading not guilty to the charges framed against him, the petitioner is now facing his trial in the court of the learned Magistrates. (3). The learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection to the effect that since a remedy against the impugned order was available to the petitioner by way of preferring a revision application under Section 397 Cr. P.C. either before this Court or before the Sessions Judge concerned, this petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the impugned order was certainly revisable under Section 397 Cr. P.C. but contended that the scope of Section 482 Cr. P.C. either before this Court or before the Sessions Judge concerned, this petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the impugned order was certainly revisable under Section 397 Cr. P.C. but contended that the scope of Section 482 Cr. P.C. is wide enough to embrace within its fold the cases of abuse of the process of the Court and in which the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is necessary to secure the ends of justice. The learned counsel claimed that the present case was of that type and therefore, non-filing a revision application under Section 397 Cr. P.C. against the impugned order does not create a bar in the exercise of its in-herent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by this Court. (4). It is settled law that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is an exceptional power which should be very sparingly and cautiously exercised to prevent manifest injustice being caused or to abuse the process of the Court. It is also well settled that though in view of the object to be achieved the scope of Section 482 Cr. P.C. is quite wide yet where there is a specific provision in the Code or in any other law to achieve the desired remedy, the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should not ordinarily be exercised. In view of this settled position of law, this petition is treated as an application under Section 397 Cr. P.C. (5). Judged from the angle of the scope of Section 397 Cr. P.C. the impugned order is found neither incorrect nor illegal or improper. In the contents of the seizure memo, the arrest memo and the statements of Sarva Shri Prahlad Singh, SHO Pyare Singh SI, Ram Vilas Sharma, Head Constable and Shri Sangram Singh L.C. recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. there is prima facie sufficient evidence to believe that at the relevant day, time and place the petitioner was found in possession of such cinematograph films which did not bear the required certification from the Board and such black films which could be used for making Copies from other films. P.C. there is prima facie sufficient evidence to believe that at the relevant day, time and place the petitioner was found in possession of such cinematograph films which did not bear the required certification from the Board and such black films which could be used for making Copies from other films. Prima facie, Shri Prahlad Singh had reasons to feel satisfied that the uncertified films were meant for exhibition at any place so as to violate the provisions of Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act 1957 and the blank films could be used for making a copy from other films and thus for infringing the copy right of the owner of such film so as to attrack penal provisions of Section 63 & 68A of the Copyright Act 1957. On such material before him, the learned Magistrate had prima facie reasons to believe that the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act 1952 and under Sections 63, 64 and 68A of the Copy Right Act 1957 were committed by the petitioner in the present case. (6). Relying upon the definition of the term ``exhibition as given in Section 2(e) of Rajasthan Video Films (Regulation of Exhibition) Act 1990 and Section 3(4) of the said Act the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no material before the learned Magistrate at the time of framing charges to negate the possibility of exhibition of the Films in the residential premises of petitioners family for the members of the household, his relatives and personal friends. In this behalf the learned counsel referred to petitioners application dated 17-12- 1994 and further submitted that the petitioner had purchased the video Cassets from an authorised shop of the Customs Department at Porbunder on 20.6.94 and since he did not intend to exhibit them in any public place mere possession thereof was not an offence under any of the provisions of the two Acts namely, the Cinematograph Act 1952 and the Copyright Act 1957. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that complaint of infringement of Copy right in a work may be made by the author, or assignee or licensee of such work only and since no such complaint was ever made by any such person the Magistrate was not at all justified in taking cognizance of the offences under Section 63 & 68A of the Copyright Act 1957. Reference to the case reported in AIR 1969 P. 302 (1) was also made. (7). There may be some force in the arguments advanced by the lear- ned counsel. But, as stated above, at the time of framing charge for an offence against an accused person, Magistrate is required to feel satisfied if there exists prima facie evidence on his record to put an accused on trial for the commission of an offence. The test is that if the evidence place before him at that stage, if it goes unrebutted, may lead to the contviction of the accused for the offences alleged to have been committed, a charge should be framed and the accused be put to trial. The charge framed in that case would not be baseless or groundless. At that stage the Magistrate is not required to make critical appreciation of the prospective evidence in a way so as to record a verdict of not guilty in favour of the accused. In the instant case what was there on the record of the learned Magistrate was the evidence disclosing possession of uncertified 34 Vedio cassets and two blank films containing no visual images. Some of the video Cassets did not mention the names of the Cinematograph films contained therein. The large quantity of the video cassets and their very nature could have pursuded the SHO to feel satisfied that these were meant for exhibition at any place and not necessarily at the residential places. The blank films could have been used for making copies from other films. On all such facts before him charges framed against the petitioner by the Magistrate cannot be ter- med as baseless or groundless. (8). In view of the above discussion the impugned order is not found as incorrect, illegal or improper. The application under Section 397 Cr. P.C. is therefore, dismissed. (9). Viewed from the angle of scope of Section 482 Cr. P.C. also the same conclusion is arrived at. Since the impugned order does not suffer from the vice of incorrectness, illegality or impropriety it does not perpetuate any abuse of the process of the Court. There is no injustice in continuing a legally instituted prosecution against the petitioner. (9). Viewed from the angle of scope of Section 482 Cr. P.C. also the same conclusion is arrived at. Since the impugned order does not suffer from the vice of incorrectness, illegality or impropriety it does not perpetuate any abuse of the process of the Court. There is no injustice in continuing a legally instituted prosecution against the petitioner. At the time of taking cognizance it was not open for the learned Magistrate to shift the evidence or appreciate it and come to the conclusion that no primafacie case is made out against the petitioner. The inherent powers of this Court can be exercised only when the allegation in the FIR or the complaint together with other material collected during investigation taken at the face value do not constitute the offence. That is not found to be the position in this case. This case is therefore, not fit to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for the benefit of the petitioner. In the result, this petition fails and is hearby dismissed.