They arise out of companymon facts Satyapal Varshneya, respondent herein, a publisher and bookseller of Chandni Chowk, Delhi made companyplaints 12, in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pahargang, Delhi against Surendar Kumar Aggarwal appellant herein, resident of Allahabad, Om Prakash Sharma, resident of Meerut and one other alleging the companymission of an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act 1957.
The accused persons appeared before the Magistrate and made an application under Section 177, Criminal Procedure Code alleging that the Magistrate had numberterritorial jurisdiction to hear the companyplaint as the alleged offences were number companymitted within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeals 180 A, 180 B, 180 C, 180 D and 180 E of 1973.
The Revisions were heard by the Additional Sessions Judge who reported these cases to the High Court of Delhi with the recommendations that since the material so far on record did number disclose that the alleged offence was companymitted within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the orders of the Magistrate be quashed and the companyplaints dismissed.
The Magistrate examined the companyplainant under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter issued summonses to the accused.
Sunder Kumar Aggarwal and his companyccused filed revision petitions 414 to 418 of 1971 in the Court of Session.
A learned Judge of the High Court by a companymon judgment dated March 9, 1972 accepted this alternative recommendation of the Additional Sessions judge, and disposed of the Revisions accordingly.
Against those orders of the High Court, Surender Kumar Aggarwal has filed these appeals by special leave.
In the alternative, he recommended that the trial companyrt be direct to treat the objections raised by the petitioner as a preliminary one and dispose it of on merits after affording an opportunity to the companyplainant to adduce further evidence in the matter.
The Magistrate overruled the objections.
