2018 PLP 835 (CLD)

MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, J.

Sadaqat Ali and his brother Zahir Shah are seeking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court who have come up with the prayer: "it is respectfully submitted that keeping in view of the entire facts and circumstances by issuing an appropriate writ the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.133/2015 dated 01.10.2015 u/s FIA ACC Peshawar may kindly be quashed, or any other remedy deemed proper be awarded in favour of the petitioners against respondents."

2. Setting the grounds from serial "A" to "R" the petitioners pose to be innocent and have been falsely implicated on the basis of mala fide and ulterior motive. The section of law is not attracted to the case of the petitioners because no violation of any copyright are committed by them. They are not the manufacturer of the RAZIQ RED ANAR which is a sparkling drink and it is packed for Balooch Food (Pvt.) Ltd. registered company which is filled by Shandy Cola Pakistan. The petitioner No.1 is B-Tech student of Abasyn University Peshawar while the petitioner No.2 is the Distributor of the RAZIQ RED ANAR. The matter been pending in between the respondent No.3 with Messrs Balooch Food Pvt. Ltd. Company which is sub-judice before the intellectual Property Tribunal at Lahore where Civil Suit titled Messrs Balooch Food Pvt. Ltd. v. 6-B Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. is pending adjudication, therefore on this score the case registered against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. All the other grounds taken are legal and factual for the consideration of the prayer in accordance with the law for its acceptance.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, record with their assistance gone through.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on 2010 PCr.LJ 518 (The State v. Muhammad Amin Haroon) according to the wisdom contained herein; (d) Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962)

Ss. 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e), 53(2)(b), 53(2)(c), 66-A & 66-B

Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S.3

Scope and jurisdiction of FIA in the cases relating to Copyright Ordinance, 1962

Federal Investigation Agency has jurisdiction to proceed in the cases pertaining to violation of Copyright Ordinance, 1962, particularly after insertion of Entry No.26 in the Schedule to the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974

However, the FIA having been given the concurrent jurisdiction, can take cognizance of such cases where violation of some Government work is involved, but has no jurisdiction in respect of infringement of Copyright between private parties or disputes which are civil in nature. Thus, prayed for quashment of the case registered against the petitioners. Conversely the Standing Counsel for the respondents referred to PLD 2006 [Lahore] 631 (Mazhar Hussain v. The State), PLD 2013 Supreme Court 401 (Director General Anti-Corruption Establishment Lahore v. Muhammad Akram Khan), 2006 SCMR 1192 (Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf) and 2006 SCMR 276 (Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashif), 2006 SCMR 1957 (Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi), PLD 2006 Supreme Court 598 (Muhammad Mansha v. Station House Officer Police Station Chiniot) and the judgment of Peshawar High Court Peshawar in W.P. No.4290-P/2016 Palwasha Afridi v. Director General FIA, thereby prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The Director Anti-Corruption Circle Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar has furnished list of IPR cases registered during the year 2015 of FIA ACC, Peshawar. This list contain as many as 47 number of cases registered under the sections 66, 66-A, Copy Right Ordinance, 1962. It is also appended with the copies of the First Information Reports, thereby this is not the only case which has been registered under the appropriate section of law of the Copy Right Ordinance, 1962.

6. We find, that there exist civil litigation which is in progress before the Intellectual Property Tribunal at Lahore so are conscious of the fact that the remedies available when there is civil and criminal proceedings...criminal proceedings cannot bar the presence of civil proceedings and both civil and criminal proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously. In the civil litigation the factual controversy is of course certain facts are to be determined and resolved when the High Court jurisdiction is appreciated, the question of facts cannot be resolved under the disputed questions.

7. In the instant petition it has been admitted that the case registered against the petitioners each one is enjoying his liberty who has been enlarged on post arrest bail. The honourable apex Court in famous case like the one reported in PLD 1971 Supreme Court 677 (Shahnaz Begum v. Hon'ble Judges of High Court of Sindh) has observed that whenever an FIR is registered, having constitutional supervisory and inherent jurisdiction has constantly refrained from directly interfering with police investigation of criminal cases as Courts shall not exercise their control over the investigation. This may be prejudicial to the accused as well as detrimental to all the impartial trials and proceedings.

8. The extract in the First Information Report we believe, require recording of facts before the learned trial Court where it is always open that before even framing of charge the petitioners may file application for their discharge or otherwise, section 249-A or 265 K of the Criminal Procedure Code, the exercise of powers of the Court may be asked for ultimate acquittal.

9. For all the reasons stated above, we do not find any force in the prayer as asked for in this petition, resultantly, it is dismissed. MH/65/P Petition dismissed.