राजस्थान हाईकोर्ट की बड़ी पीठ इस मुद्दे पर ग़ौर करने वाली है कि ऐसा अपराध जिसमें तीन साल तक की क़ैद की सज़ा हो सकती है, उसकी प्रकृति (संज्ञेय या असंज्ञेय) क्या है? एकल पीठ ने इस मामले को एक बड़ी पीठ को सौंपने का फ़ैसला किया। इस पीठ को यह निर्णय करना है कि भूमि राजस्व अधिनियम की धारा 91(6)(a) (बिना किसी क़ानूनी अधिकार के भूमि पर क़ब्ज़ा करना) और कॉपीराइट अधिनियम की धारा 63 और 68A के तहत होने वाला अपराध दोनों ही संज्ञेय हैं या असंज्ञेय? न्यायाधीश ने कहा कि पिंटू देवी बनाम राजस्थान राज्य मामले में एक अन्य एकल पीठ ने जो फ़ैसला सुनाया वह क़ानून की दृष्टि से सही नहीं है और हमारी राय इससे अलग है। पीठ ने कहा, "इस प्रावधान के अध्ययन से मालूम होता है कि भूमि राजस्व अधिनियम की धारा 91(6)(a) के तहत तीन माह तक की सज़ा का प्रावधान है। इस तरह, इस धारा के तहत आने वाले अपराध के लिए तीन साल की क़ैद की सज़ा दी जा सकती है…सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राजीव चौधरी के मामले में सीआरपीसी की धारा 167(2) के तहत कारावास की विभिन्न अवधि की व्याख्या की…इस धारा के तहत तीसरी श्रेणी के अपराध जिसे असंज्ञेय बताया जाता है वे हैं जिसमें तीन साल से कम अवधि की क़ैद की सज़ा मिलती है या सिर्फ़ जुर्माना लगाए जाते हैं …इसलिए (…) 'तीन साल की वास्तविक क़ैद की सज़ा' ऐसे अपराध के लिए देना जो कि इस क्लाज़ के तहत संज्ञेय नहीं है, इसकी अनुमति का विकल्प उपलब्ध नहीं है।…" अदालत ने कहा कि अधिनियम की धारा 91(6)(a) के तहत अपराध निश्चित रूप से असंज्ञेय अपराध होगा क्योंकि 91(6)(a) के तहत अधिनियम के अनुसार अपराधी को तीन साल तक की क़ैद की सज़ा दी जा सकती है। इस तरह इस प्रावधान के तहत सज़ा तीन सालों तक जारी रहेगी और इस अपराध के लिए तीन साल की क़ैद की सजा की अनुमति है। अदालत ने कहा, "इस प्रावधान का क़ानूनी उद्देश्य इसे संज्ञेय बनाना है। यह इसकी धारा 91 के प्रावधानों से स्पष्ट है, अदालत ने कहा क्योंकि इस धारा 91का दूसरा प्रावधान कहता है कि इस क्लाज़ के तहत हुए अपराध की जांच डीएसपी से निचली रैंक का अधिकारी नहीं करेगा। चूंकी जांच सिर्फ़ संज्ञेय अपराधों की होती है और असंज्ञेय अपराधों के लिए इस तारा की कार्रवाई की अनुमति नहीं है, क्योंकि असंज्ञेय अपराध की स्थिति में कोई एफआईआर दर्ज कराए जाने की अनुमति नहीं है। जान बूझकर पुलिस को जांच का अधिकार दिया गया है और क्लाज़ (a) के लिए यह प्रावधान नहीं किया गया है, जबकि क्लाज़ (b) जिसमें क़ैद की सजा का प्रावधान है और जिसे एक माह तक बढ़ाया जा सकता है, इस तरह का अधिकार नहीं है।"
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5128/2019
1. Nathu Ram S/o Purna Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village Jayal, Teh. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur.
2. Purna Ram S/o Narsi Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Village Jayal, Teh. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur.
3. Ram Gopal S/o Purna Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Jayal, Teh. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Tehsildar (Revenue), Jayal, Dist. Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ravindra Acharya.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Farzand Ali, AAG-cum-GA
Ms.Rajlaxmi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
O R D E R
Reserved on : 05/03/2020
Pronounced on : 07/04/2020
BY THE COURT:
The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the
petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No.12/2016 lodged at
the Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur for the offence under
Section 91(6) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.
2
Shri Ravindra Acharya learned counsel representing the
petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that the Police had
no jurisdiction or power to register the impugned F.I.R. because
the offence alleged is a non-cognizable one. In support of his
contention, Shri Acharya relied upon a Single Bench Judgment
of this Court in the case of Pintu Dey Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Anr. reported in 2015(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1291 and urged
that it has been conclusively laid down in the said decision that
the offences under Sections 63 and 68A of the Copyright Act
are non-cognizable offences. He thus urged that the offence
under Section 91(6) of the Land Revenue Act carries the same
punishment as the above offence under the Copyright Act and
thus, considered in light of Part-II of Schedule-I of Cr.P.C., the
same would be a non-cognizable offence and hence, registration
of an F.I.R. for such offence, amounts to a gross abuse of the
process of law and hence, the impugned F.I.R. should be
quashed.
Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Farzand Ali
opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ counsel
and urged that the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Pintu Dey (supra) is incorrect, inasmuch as, the ratio of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajeev
3
Choudhary Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi reported in AIR 2001
SC 2369 was wrongly applied by this Court while holding that
the offences under Sections 63 and 68A of the Copyright Act
are non-cognizable in nature. He contended that the
controversy should be referred to a Larger Bench so as to
resolve anomaly existing in the interpretation of the important
legal issue.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the
impugned F.I.R. and have carefully perused the judgment
rendered by this Court in the case of Pintu Dey (supra) wherein,
it was held that the offences under Sections 63 and 68A of the
Copyright Act are non-cognizable and hence, registration of an
F.I.R. is impermissible for such offences.
A perusal of the said judgment reveals that the learned
Single Bench of this Court applied the rationale of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajeev Choudhary
(supra) and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in the
case of Amarnath Vyas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 2025, and held that sentence “may
extend upto three years” as provided for the offences under
Sections 63 and 68A of the Copyright Act, would not be covered
4
by the phrase “imprisonment for three years and upwards” as
provided in Schedule II of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the offences
under Sections 63 and 68A of the Copyright Act were treated to
be non-cognizable ones.
For considering the prayer of learned A.A.G. to refer the
controversy to a Larger Bench, the relevant statutory provisions
need to be adverted to.
Sections 63 and 68A of the Copyright Act read as below:
“63. Offence of infringement of copyright or other
rights conferred by this Act.- Any person who
knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of-
(a) the copyright in a work, or
(b) any other right conferred by this Act except the
right conferred by section 53A,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to three years and with fine which shall not be
less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to
two lakh rupees:
Provided that where the infringement has not been
made for gain in the course of trade or business the
court may, for adequate and special reasons to be
mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a
fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.
Explanation.- Construction of a building or other
structure which infringes or which, if completed, would
5
infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be an
offence under this section.”
“68A. Penalty for contravention of section 52A.-
Any person who publishes a sound recording or a video
film in contravention of the provisions of section 52A
shall be punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
Relevant extracts of Section 91(6) of the Land Revenue
Act read as under:
“91(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (2) -
(a) whoever occupies any land without lawful
authority or, having occupied such land before corning
into force of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment)
Act, 1992, fails to remove such occupation within fifteen
days from the date of service of a notice in writing
calling upon him to do so by the Tehsildar “shall, on
conviction, be punished with simple imprisonment which
shall not be less than one month but which may extend
to three years and with fine which may extend to
twenty thousand rupees”; and
[Emphasis supplied]
Provided that, in the case of an offence under
clause (a), the court may for any adequate or special
reason to be mentioned in the judgment impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one
month :
Provided also that no investigation of an offence
under clause (a) of this sub section shall be made by an
6
officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of
Police :
Provided further that no court shall take
cognizance of an offence under clause (b) except with
the previous sanction of the Collector.”
A plain reading of provision indicates that the offence
under Section 91(6)(2)(a) of the Land Revenue Act stipulates
punishment which may extend “upto three years”. Thus,
awarding actual imprisonment of “three years” is permissible for
this offence.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted various terms of
imprisonment referred to in Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in the case of
Rajeev Choudhary (supra).
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. reads as below:
“167(2). The Magistrate to whom an accused person is
forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has
not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time,
authorize the detention of the accused in such custody
as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding
fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to
try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further
detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be
forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that-
7
(a) the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the
accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the
police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is
satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but
no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the
accused person in custody under this paragraph for a
total period exceeding,-
(i). ninety days, where the investigation relates to an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment “for a term of not less than ten years”;
(ii). sixty days, where the investigation relates to “any
other offence”, and, on the expiry of the said period of
ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the
accused person shall be released on bail if he is
prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person
released on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed
to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII
for the purposes of that Chapter.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Clause (i) to which custody period of 90 days is applicable
caters to such offences for which imprisonment of “ten years”
and above is provided. Clause (ii) to which the custody period
of 60 days applies, caters to such offences for which
imprisonment which may extend to 10 years is provided. Thus,
the offences for which imprisonment of “ten years and more” is
provided, would not be covered by the Clause (II) of Section
167(2) Cr.P.C. and for such offences, the outer limit of filing
8
charge-sheet would be 90 days. The classification of offences
for the purposes of making them cognizable/non-cognizable is
provided in Second Part of the Schedule-I of the Cr.P.C. which
reads as below:
II. Classification of offences against other laws
Offence Cognizable
or noncognizable
Bailable or
non-bailable
By what
Court
triable
1 2 3 4
If punishable with
death, imprisonment
for life, or
imprisonment for more
than 7 years
Cognizable Non-bailable Court of
Session
If punishable with
imprisonment for 3
years, and upwards but
not more than 7 years.
Cognizable Non-bailable Magistrate
of the First
class
If punishable with
imprisonment for less
than 3 years or with
fine only.
NonCognizable
bailable Any
Magistrate
The third category of offences which are made noncognizable in this Section of the Schedule are those which are
punishable “with imprisonment for less than three years or with
fine only”.
Therefore, on a plain reading of this clause, awarding
“actual imprisonment of three years” for an offence which is
made non-cognizable by this clause, is not a permissible option.
9
Section 91(6) of the Land Revenue Act referred to supra
provides that the offender can be punished with imprisonment
which may extend to three years. Thus, the provision does
lay that punishment would be continued within three years.
Awarding an actual sentence of three years is permissible for
the offence. A further indication of the legislative intent that the
offence was engrafted so as to make it a cognizable one is
given in Section 91 itself. The second proviso to Section 91
mentions that investigation of an offence under clause (a) of
sub-section (6) shall not be made by an officer below the rank
of a Dy.S.P. Manifestly, investigation can only be made into
cognizable offences as no such course of action is permissible
for a non-cognizable offence in relation whereto, only an inquiry
is permissible as no F.I.R. can be registered for non-cognizanble
offence. The power to investigate has consciously been provided
to the Police, restricting the same to clause (a) whereas clause
(b) which provides for imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one month, no such power is given. Thus, the offence
under Section 91(6)(b) of the Act would definitely be a noncognizable one.
In this background, I am of the view that the contention of
the learned AAG that the matter requires to be placed before a
10
Larger Bench for resolving the important question as to whether
the offence under Section 91(6)(a) of the Land Revenue Act and
those Sections 63 and 68A of the Copyright Act should be
treated as ‘cognizable or non-cognizable’. I am of the primafacie opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Bench in
the case of Pintu Dey (supra) does not appear to be laying
down the correct proposition of law and I am inclined to differ
with the same. Therefore, the following question of law is
framed and shall be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for
resolution thereof by the Larger Bench:
“What would be the nature of an offence (whether
cognizable or non-cognizable) for which imprisonment “may
extend to three years” is provided and no stipulation is made in
the statute regarding it being cognizable/non-cognizable ?”
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
/tarun goyal/
हीरालाल यादव "हीरा" पड़ता नहीं हूँ सोच के ये बात प्यार में I घाटे बहुत हैं चाहतों के रोज़गार में ।। ह...
