ORDER of REFERENCE The facts of the case are as follows:-- Syed Sharafat Hussain, has come up in revision under section 435, Cr. P: C. For quashment of the proceedings being taken against him under section 7/8, Copyright Act No. III. The Crimes Branch Police, Lahore instituted a complaint for the infringement of copyrights against the petitioner and the Sub-Inspector, Crimes Branch, Lahore, raided the promises of the petitioner and recovered the forged and fictitious textbooks and moved the Court to initiate proceedings under section 7/8 of the Copy--rights Act No III of 1914 against him. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence in question is non---cognizable and the Sub-Inspector must have first obtained a warrant from the Magistrate for the investigation of the case. As the Sub-Inspector did not obtain any such warrant under section 74 of the said act the proceedings taken under section 155 (2) of Cr. P. C. Are illegal and liable to quashment.
The proceedings are forwarded fns accepting the revision on the following grounds:- The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Crl. Mist. No. 2683 of 1968 decided on 8-7-71, wherein His Lordship Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Cheema, has held that a police officer is not justified in carrying out investigation of a non-cognizable offence without a previous order of the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction, and, therefore, the entire proceedings of raid and recovery are without lawful authority. In the present case the raid was made without obtaining a warrant from the Magis--trate concerned. The proceedings are, therefore, liable to quashment and as such the revision petition is recommended to the High Court.
ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT This is a reference under section 438, Ct. P. C. By the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore.
2. The facts giving rise to the reference as mentioned in the same are as follows:- There was a complaint alleging the infringement of the provisions of the Copyright Act, against S. Sharafat Hussain, petitioner. A Sub-Inspector Crimes Branch, Lahore, raided the premises of the petitioner and recovered the forged and fictitious textbooks. He then moved the Court to initiate proceedings under section 7/8 of the Copyright Act No. III of 1914 against him. The petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Lahore. Ch. Faiz Ahmad Aslam, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, heard the matter and referred the same to this Court under section 438, Cr. P. C. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supports the reference.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed in the reference that the offence being non-cognizable one, the Sub-Inspector was not authorised under the law to investigate the case without having obtained prior permission from a Magistrate under section 155 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, that since he had not done so, the proceedings, including the raid and seizure of the infirming of textbooks, were bad is law and that 4 all the subsequent proceedings are also without jurisdiction and are, as such, liable to be quashed. In support of the view the learned Sessions fudge, had cited an unreported case of the High Court of West Pakistan namely Abdul Hamid v. The State (Cr. Misc. No. 2683 of 1968), decided on 8-7-1971 by Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Cheema. Having considered the question, I am inclined to agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The view expressed above is also supported by the following authorities.
(1) Haider v. The State 1969 P Cr. L J 598.
(2) Irshad Begum v. The State PLD 1 461 Lab. 882.
(3) Hussain Bakhsh v. The State (PLD 1963 Lah. 46).
(4) Muhammad Rashid v. The State PLD 1964 Kar. 381.
(5) Maljuddin Laskar v. Nurunnabi PLD 1965 Dacca 521.
4. As a result, I accept the reference and quash the proceedings against the petitioner.