In the case of Roma Mitra,W/o Dr. (Prof.) N.R Mitra
(Appellant/Petitioner) v State of Bihar and Dr. (Mrs) Supata
Bhattacharya (Respondent/Complainant); the Petitioner under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code(CPC) prayed for
quashing of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, who had
taken cognizance of offence under Sections 63,67 & 68 of the
Copyright Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The issue here arose, when Dr. (Mrs) Supata Bhattacharya, as a
PhD research student and under guidance of Roma Mitra, had prepared
a thesis titled "POLITICAL MOBILISATION AND CASTE CONFLICT
IN BIHAR SINCE 1967 TO 1980 – A SURVEY" . It
was a complaint of Supata Bhattacharya that Roma Mitra had
published a book in the year 1992 under the title "CASTE
POLARISATION AND POLITICS" describing herself as the
author and the other accused persons as publisher and printer, the
said book was alleged by Supata as having been virtually copied
from her thesis.
Roma Mitra based her case on the following arguments:
that the allegation, regarding similarity and copying from the
thesis of Supata, was not sufficient for attracting either of the
penal provisions of the Copyright Act, for it was not the case that
she had exactly copied from the thesis of Supata.
that she in her capacity as guide of Supata had guided her to
go through certain unpublished manuscripts for preparing the
concept of the thesis, and Supata while doing the research and
preparing the thesis had to some extent adopted the expressions of
that she being a renowned professor had worked on different
topics, and was the author of several important publications. That
the book in question had been published in the year 1992, but
Supata had filed the complaint only in 2000 i.e. almost after a
lapse of eight years from the date of publication and as such, the
order of cognizance was barred under Section 468 of the CPC.
Relying on the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited v Md.
Sharaful Haque; Ramesh Chandra Sinha v The State of Bihar; and
Pandey Singh v The State Of Rajasthan; it was submitted that
on the ground of limitation itself, the order of cognizance had to
be set aside.
Supata counter argued that the question of limitation had to be
considered from the date of knowledge and, not from the date of
commission of the offence. Further, it was strongly argued that she
had approached the court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482, CPC, against the order of cognizance. It was
submitted, that, it had been held repeatedly that, at the initial
stage, the Court might not interfere with the criminal proceedings.
At the time of cognizance, the only, requirement was to see, as to
whether, a prima facie case was made or not. In sum and substance,
it was submitted that this Court might not interfere with the order
of cognizance in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in
The High Court of Patna observed that since Roma Mitra was the
guide of the Supata, there was a possibility of recording the
expression of the former by the latter in her thesis and on such
similarity it could not be said, that Roma Mitra while being an
author of a book published in the year 1992 had exactly copied from
the thesis of Supata. With regard to the question of limitation,
the Court opined that although some explanation was tried to be
given with regard to filing of the complaint eight years from the
date of publication however, in the order of cognizance the Learned
Magistrate had not at all dealt with the delay nor had he passed
any order for condoning the delay.
The Court held that, the Learned Magistrate had taken cognizance
of the offence under Section 63, 67 & 68, of the Copyright Act
and 120B of the IPC but here, the restriction under Section 468
(2)(C) would be applicable and accordingly, after expiry of three
years, the Learned Magistrate would not be justified to take
cognizance of the offence. Thus the Court stated that Roma Mitra
had rightly relied on the Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd
case, and held that in the present case, order of cognizance was
barred by limitation, as prescribed under Section
468(2)(C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).
Accordingly, the cognizance order was set aside and the petition
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).