ALOK KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH having a chequered history in this court, this petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. connected with a criminal revision and another criminal miscellaneous application connected with another criminal revision, is up for consideration a new in view of peculiar facts and circumstances referred to hereinafter. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL complaint case No. 1630 of 1979 was filed by G. K. Agarwal and his wife Gyaneshwari Devi in which M/s. Sahitya Bhawan Educational Publishers, Agra is accused No. 1 while Kanhaiya Lal Bansal partner of No. 1 and Ram Saran Bansal another partner of No. 1 are the other two accused. This complaint was made on the allegations that the accused are guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 63 of the Copy Right Act of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as Act) in as much as the accused did not honour the commitments made. This complaint case has given rise to criminal miscellaneous application No. 4219 of 1979 challenging the complaint proceeding in entirety and also to criminal revision No. 1615 of 1980 challenging the summoning order dated 28-6-79 requiring the presence of the accused on 27-7-1979. ( 3 ) A subsequent complaint was also filed giving rise to complaint cast No. 160 of 1983. This was for further actions of alleged infringement of copy right. In this case also the Magistrate passed an order summoning the three accused. From this complaint case, criminal miscellaneous application No. 8141 of 1988 as also criminal revision No. 1828 of 1983 was filed challenging entire proceedings and summoning order respectively in this court. Interim stay orders were obtained by the applicant in all the four matters. K. L. Bansal is the lone accused applicant alleging himself to be a partner and doing pairvi on behalf of all the accused in the four matters which were connected to be heard together. ( 4 ) WHEN these matters came up for final arguments, a statement was made on 28-2-1991 by the learned counsel for the accused applicant on the basis of which the matters were dismissed, as not pressed and the interim orders were vacated. ( 4 ) WHEN these matters came up for final arguments, a statement was made on 28-2-1991 by the learned counsel for the accused applicant on the basis of which the matters were dismissed, as not pressed and the interim orders were vacated. It may be mentioned that the order dated 28-3-1991 had taken note of the statement of Shri Swami Dayal, learned senior Advocate for the accused applicant that since the parties have compromised, he did not desire to press the applications and all other connected matters because they had become infructuous. ( 5 ) YET another application which has not been separately numbered, was filed before this court praying that the statement was made by the counsel in the aforesaid case on the basis of some compromise between the complainant and the accused but because the complainant did not abide by his promises, the compromise fell through as a result of which no compromise could be filed in this court, and therefore the S. 482, Cr. P. C. petitioners and the revisions may be revived. On this application, notice was issued by this court on 28-10-1991. ( 6 ) SHRI Swami Dayal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri Madhav Jain has been heard at considerable length in support of this application praying for recall of the order. Apart from technicality, merits of the case was argued by Shri Swami Dayal who cited the latest decision of the Supreme Court which according to him supports his argument that the delay in this case could be interpreted as a favourable circumstance for the accused to get rid of this case. ( 7 ) SHRI Sushil Harkauli has been heard on behalf of the complainant who has placed able arguments. He has highlighted efforts of the accused to thwart the criminal proceedings on one pretext or the other and said that as per affidavit in reply, there was no talk of compromise and the method adopted by the accused was only to delay the proceedings. ( 8 ) THERE may be two ways of looking at the things. One is whether responsibility be thrown on the counsels statement and petition be rejected as not maintainable, for this court may not review its order. ( 8 ) THERE may be two ways of looking at the things. One is whether responsibility be thrown on the counsels statement and petition be rejected as not maintainable, for this court may not review its order. The other method is to permit the learned counsel for the accused to argue the matter on merits and then deliver a judgment for or against the applicant, as the facts may require. In order that real justice is done and none suffers, though strictly it may not have been necessary to go into the matter on merits after the dismissal of this petition placing reliance upon the statement of the counsel, the second course has been adopted in order to clear the cobweb of superficiality and technicality. The applications have been heard on merits in order to further the cause of justice. ( 9 ) THE allegations made by the complainant giving rise to the two complaints, prima facie disclose offences and if these allegations are proved, it may not be disputable that the offence created under the Act shall be made out. This observation is made only to judge further arguments and shall not be interpreted by any of the courts below or in any subsequent proceeding as a finding of fact. Shri Swami Dayal, therefore, with the experience of legal knowledge he has intelligently argued that since the complainants were made in the years 1979 and 1983, the passage of time should be interpreted as a bar for the continuance of this case now. He has cited the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Common Causes Registered through Director v. Union of India reported in 1996 (1) JT (SC) 464 (sic ). The Apex Court speaking through Honble Mr. Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy has laid down once again the ambit of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has examined various provisions of Cr. P. C. and thereafter some directions and guidelines have been laid down to be followed when the matters are delayed in the criminal courts. ( 10 ) SHRI Sushil Harkauli has creditably argued two points. First, the Act itself carves out two specific remedies for the persons such as writers, who normally have no inclination to go to courts of law. ( 10 ) SHRI Sushil Harkauli has creditably argued two points. First, the Act itself carves out two specific remedies for the persons such as writers, who normally have no inclination to go to courts of law. It was argued by him that by the very nature of the job voluntarily undertaken by the writers, they would prefer to be far away from courts proceedings. It was emphasised that after the provision in the Act have been enacted to discharge the serious responsibility of protecting the vital interests of otherwise helpless authors. It was said that for that reason in Chapter 12 "civil Remedy" has been made available whereas in Chapter 23 "offences" have been created. Second point argued by Shri Harkauli was that the delay in the case has not been caused at the instance of the complainant at all. Whatever delay is there, it is because of the stay order obtained by the accused. In view of these two arguments it was submitted by Shri Sushil Harkauli that accused has no case even on merits apart from the fact that this court cannot review its order dismissing the petitions under S. 482, Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) FROM whatever angle, the delay aspect is viewed in the instant case, the accused alone stands responsible for it. After the summoning orders were passed, they filed the petitions in this court and obtained interim order staying proceedings before the court of Magistrate. Then they came out with some statement supposed to have been made by the complainant alleging compromise in the matter. In the second breath they came out with the theory that since the complainant has backed out from the promise, the S. 482, Cr. P. C. application may be heard on merits. Without mentioning the fact as to how many adjournments have been taken in this court and by whom, it has to be held that the accused have caused delay in these proceedings which cannot turn as a factor in favour of quashing the proceedings. ( 12 ) COMING to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court it may be mentioned that Copyright Act stands on a different footing altogether. It may be mentioned that piracy has become a global problem. ( 12 ) COMING to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court it may be mentioned that Copyright Act stands on a different footing altogether. It may be mentioned that piracy has become a global problem. It has assumed alarming proportion all over the world, and all the countries are trying to meet the challenge by taking stringent legislative and enforcement measures. The problem on piracy and the necessity for taking sufficient anti-piracy measures were also found by several societies of authors, responsible citizens, calling for an amendment in the existing Copyright Act. Special notice was taken by amending provisions to provide for an enhanced punishment in the Section dealing with subsequent conviction. ( 13 ) NONE has to be effected more than the authors by copy right violation as compared to the publishers who thrive only on intellectual creativity of the authors. They pass on their manuscript for publishing black and white and the publishers are often seen making much more money for themselves than is received by the authors. Therefore, for protecting the authors rights in every respect, the legislature has left open both remedies to the complainant, civil remedies as well as to prosecute for the offences. If it is held that just because a civil suit may he filed, complaint regarding commission of offence shall not be tried, it shall lead to travesty of justice. In the very nature of things, in copyright matters repetitive actions of accused can be normally envisaged. One publication is quite often repeated by subsequent publication. A good authors manuscript may be read by one or two or few persons if modern machinery would not have been available for publishing the same. Those modern methods create opportunity for immunerable persons to read that creation. It may be further noticed that it may become absolutely necessary to have injunction etc. in a given case for which civil suit may have to be filed. The law has created offence for punishing such printers or publishers who are not honouring their contract with the authors. ( 14 ) WHILE it is true that the printers/publishers do make enough expenses in establishing press, seeking a manuscript from authors for publication and then doing advertisement etc. through various methods and also establish a network for selling and distribution of those resultant printing materials. Put together, all this must be resulting in substantial expenses. ( 14 ) WHILE it is true that the printers/publishers do make enough expenses in establishing press, seeking a manuscript from authors for publication and then doing advertisement etc. through various methods and also establish a network for selling and distribution of those resultant printing materials. Put together, all this must be resulting in substantial expenses. Therefore, the law has permitted adjustments to be made as to how much of the price money or sale proceeds have to go to the authors and how much may be retained by the publishers/printers. ( 15 ) THE detailed discussion aforesaid leaves no doubt that the argument of Shri Swami Dayal that civil dispute having already originated on similar allegations as are made in the complaint, the present criminal proceeding be quashed has to be rejected as without any substance whatsoever. ( 16 ) IT is necessary to safeguard that no more delay be caused in this case. It is thus hereby directed that the Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and decide the two cases within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ( 17 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, application for recall as well as both the applications under S. 482, Cr. P. C. and also both the revisions are dismissed. The stay orders are vacated. Petition dismissed. .