Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 54 (KAR)

Noor Fathima v. State Of Karnataka

2019-01-04

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : J. Michael Cunha, J. - The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No. 412/2007. After investigation, charge sheet is laid against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 63(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'die Act' for short) and Section 381 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. There is no material to substantiate the accusations made against the petitioner. Initially, the case of the prosecution was that the petitioner herein committed theft of the software CD's from the office of the complainant/CW-1 and passed on the said information, which was protected under the Act, to accused No.2. However, after the investigation, the name of accused No.2 is dropped, which indicates that petitioner herein, namely, accused No.1 was not instrumental either in committing the theft or in passing the information, which was protected under the Act. Further, he submits that petitioner/ accused No.1 was ceased from the services of the complainant's office in the year 2004. She was relieved from her duty in the year 2014. The complaint came to be lodged in the year 2005. All these circumstances therefore, indicate that petitioner has been falsely implicated, out of spite and vengeance on account of her resignation from the complainant's concern. Further, he submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are non-cognizable offences and therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of alleged offence without the authorization of the Magistrate as per section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 3. Refuting the contention, learned SPP-II would submit that the allegation made against the petitioner squarely attract the offence punishable under Section 63(b) of the Act as well as Section 381 of IPC. The stolen CD's are recovered during investigation. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to contend that her prosecution is baseless and no material is available to substantiate the charges leveled against her. Meeting the contention that the offence alleged against the petitioner could not have been investigated without prior permission of the learned Magistrate as required under section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 learned SPP-II would submit that the offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment upto seven years. Meeting the contention that the offence alleged against the petitioner could not have been investigated without prior permission of the learned Magistrate as required under section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 learned SPP-II would submit that the offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment upto seven years. Therefore, there is no error or infirmity in the prosecution launched against the petitioner for the above offences. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out substantial grounds for quashing the impugned proceedings. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that she was in the services of the complainant/CW 1 till 2001. Soon after her resignation, the complaint came to be lodged alleging that petitioner/accused No. 1 has stolen the software CD's from the office and had handed them over to accused No.2 (who is later arraigned as CW-2). No doubt, initially FIR was registered against CW-2 as well, but CW-2 having turned approver and having supported the allegations made against the petitioner, merely on account of citing CW-2 as prosecution witness, criminal liability of the petitioner for the alleged offence does not get absolved. Moreover, the records indicate that the Investigation Agency has collected necessary material in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the prosecution of the petitioner is baseless, groundless and no material is available in proof of the charges framed against her, cannot be sustained. 5. Likewise, the contention of the petitioner that the offence alleged against her are non cognizable also cannot be accepted for the reasons that in addition to the provisions of the Copyright Act, the petitioner is also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC, which is a cognizable offence. Therefore, there is no error or illegality whatsoever in the impugned proceedings warranting interference of this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 I do not find any good ground to admit the petition. 6. For the above reasons, petition is dismissed.