Gyanendra Kumar, J.
1. This revision application is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the magistrate on 18-7-1962 on the application of the accused,
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the complainant-opposite party Ham Narain Pathak, filed a complaint at Bareilly against the applicants under Section 63 of the Copyright Act on the allegations that; the complainant was the Manager, Printer and Publisher of Sri Kadhey Shyam Printing Press, Bareilly and had the copyright of printing, publishing and selling the booit known as 'Hadhey Shyam Kal Ramayana' written by Pandit Hadhey Shyam Kathawachak of Bareilly; that the accused were the owners of Deepak Jyoti Karyaiaya Krishna Printing Press, Hathras, that the accused infringed the copyright of the said book by printing the same at their press at Hathras and also by publishing and selling its copies at Bareilly and thus committed the offence at Bareilly as well.
3. When the accused appeared before the magistrate, they lodged an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Bareilly court, which matter came right upto the High Court. This Court ultimately directed that the magistrate could decide the point of jurisdiction after affording the complainant an opportunity of making his statement on oath about the specific Instances of publication of the book at Bareilly. Accordingly the complainant gave his statement before the magistrate on 1-4-1961, specifying the instances of publication and selling the infringing copies at Bareilly. However, the accused again felt dissatisfied and came to the High Court for the second time. By its order dated 10-10-1962 the High Court decided that the learned magistrate was Justified In coming to a tentative conclusion that he had Jurisdiction to try the case on the basis or the allegations made by the complainant in his statement on oath and that there were at least two instances of the sale of the infringing copies at Bareilly--one of the sales being to Dal Ghana and the other to Shyam Lal. The HighCourt further directed that the magistrate would be at liberty to change his opinion when Dal Chand and Shyam Lal were examined.
4. In due course the statements of Dal Ghana and Shyam Lal were recorded by the magistrate and then the complainant wanted, to produce further evidence regarding the recovery of some materials at Hathras to prove the printing of the infringing copies of the book there. The complainant accordingly summoned the alleged infringing copies and the memo of recovery etc., prepared toy the sub-inspector at the time of seizure of the infringing copies at Hathras. Thereupon the accused moved an application dated 18-7-1962 before the magistrate praying that the evidence of the prosecution be restricted only to the point of the alleged sale of the infringing copies at Bareilly and that full arguments on the above points be heard otherwise great prejudice would result to the cause of the accused. The learned magistrate passed the following order dated 18-7-02 on the aforesaid application of the accused;
'I do not consider it worthwhile to hear arguments at this 'stage. Arguments will be heard after the close of the entire evidence of parties.'
5. Against the aforesaid order dated 18-7-1962 the accused went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly, who dismissed the same by his order dated 20-9-1962. Hence this revision by the accused.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and find that the revision has no force and has to be dismissed. There Is no dispute about the fact now that the magistrate at Bareilly has jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence of infringing the copyright by publishing and selling the Infringing copies at Bareilly. The contention of the applicants is that the offence of infringement of the copyight by printing at Hathras cannot be tried at Bareilly and, therefore, the evidence regarding printing and recovery of the infringing copies at Hathras cannot be adduced in the magistrate's Court at Bareilly, as the same would be inadmissible.
7. It may be mentioned here that till now the statement of the accused persons has not been, recorded. Therefore, It cannot be said that the accused would not challenge the very factum of the alleged infringement in respect of the copies printed at Hathras and sold at Bareilly. the first thing which has to be established by the complainant is that the copies sold at Bareilly were really infringing copies and unless that was proved the impugned act of selling them would not amount to an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act. Therefore, it is incumbent on the complainant to prove that the copies sole at Bareilly were really Infringing copies of the Ramayana obviously the best proof of the matter would be the production of such copies themselves which have been printed and seized from the possession of the accused at Hathras. The complainant cannot, therefore, be restricted to produce evidence only regarding sale of the copies at Bareilly when the relevant material evidencing the alleged infringement Itself was available in the shape of recovery of the mass of the infringing copies at Hathras, which would havedirect bearing on the case cognizable at Bareilly. Even though the printing of the infringing copieas at Hathras might be an offence in itself under the copyright Act yet if that is also material for the determination of the question regarding sale of the (SIC) copies at Bareilly, the production of the infringing copies seized at Hatras would itself become relevant.
8 . Section 6 of the Evidence Act provides that facts which, though not in issue are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. The printing and production of the Infringing material at Hathras, though not in issue in the case inasmuch as it is directly connected with the fact whether the books sold at Bareilly were really-infringing copies.
9. Under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the motive, preparation and previous conduct relating to a fact in issue la also relevant. Lite wise under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts or-which established identity of relevant thing are themselves relevant, Section 11(2) of the Evidence Act provides that the facts not otherwise relevant'would become relevant, if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence-of any fact In issue or relevant fact highly Improable. The printing of huge mass of infringing copies at Hathras would evidently show that they were probably meant to be sold at other neighbouring places, including Bareilly. In this connection illustrations (a) and (b) to Section 14 of the Evidence Act are also Important:
'(a) A Is accused of receiving stolen goods Knowing them to be stolen, it is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. The fact that at the same time he was In possession of many other stolen articles is relevant as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in possession to be stolen.'
'(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit coin which, at the time when he delivered it, knew to be counterfeit. The fact that, at the time of his delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of counterfeit coin is relevant.'
Thus in the instant case the possession by the accused of a number of infringing copies of the Hamayana would then to show that they were infringing copies of the real Haaney Shyam kiKamayana and would thus be clearly relevant.
10. Section 165 of the Evidence Act also gives power to the Court to require production of any document or thing if it considers necessary the production of that document or thing.
11. In this connection it Is necessary to refer to certain sections of the Copyright Act. Section 53 runs as follows:
'Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of:
(a) The copyright in a worn, or
(b) Any other right conferred by this Act.' shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year of with fine or with both.
12. The bare perusal of the section shows that the accused must have Knowingly infringed the copyright. In order to prove the ingredient of Knowledge of infringement by the accused, the production of the infringing copies would clearly be best evidence,
13. Section 64 of the Act provides that where a magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under Section 63 in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work, it shall be lawful for a Sub-Inspector to seize all copies of the work wherever found, which appear to be infringing copies. The infringing copies so seized shall as soon as practicable be produced before the magistrate. This is a mandatory provision of law and makes the production of the infringing copies necessary before the magistrate trying the case. In the present instance, the case under Section 63 of the Act is being tried at Bareilly. In this view of the matter as well the production of the copies seized by the Sub-inspector at Hathras also becomes necessary before the trying Magistrate at Bareilly.
14. Section 66 of the Copyright Act further provides that the Court trying any offence under the Act may, whether the alleged offender Is convicted or not, order that all copies of the work in possession of the alleged offender, which appear to be infringing copies be delivered up to the owner of the copyright. Therefore, the production before the trying magistrate of the alleged infringing copies recovered from the possession of the accused at Hathras would also be necessary, so that he might deliver the same to the complainant, if heconsiders it expedient to do so.
15. In the above state of law and circumstances of the case, the trying magistrate was perfectly justified in accepting the request of the complainant for summoning the record relating to the recovery of infringing copies at Hathras and further ordering their production before the Court.
16. The revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The record would immediately be sent back to the trial Court who woulddecide the case with all expedition.