Judicial orders and judgments cannot be challenged on the ground that they contravene fundamental rights. The plea of unlawful discrimination is not maintainable while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A. K. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

( 2 ) THIS Criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment dated 4th August, 1990 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Criminal Regular Case No. 433/87 State v. Gopal whereby the petitioner Gopal was convicted under Sections 52-A read with 68a of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months for default in payment of fine. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer the petitioner has moved this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayed that the conviction as well as sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer be quashed and set aside.

( 3 ) IN the petition filed by the petitioner in this case it has been stated that according to prosecution on 27th January, 1987 at about 4. 00 p. m. Mohanlal proprietor of Amber Talkies, Barmer lodged a First Information Report to the effect that a video was being operated in Mayoor Hotel and on video the film (Loha) was being shown and since the film had been released on 29th December, 1986, the film could not be exhibited at any other public place under the Copy Rights Act and that the cassette of the aforesaid film had been stolen. It was also prayed in the First Information Report that the exhibition of the film outside the cinema be stopped because it had adversely affected the cinema business and tax payable to the Government was also being evaded. On the basis of the report lodged by Mohanlal the Police registered a case, and the Police Officer went to Mayoor Hotel where the film "loha" was being shown to 80 persons who were possessing tickets. The video cassette of the film Loha was seized by the Police and after investigation challan was submitted in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer against the accused Gopal who is petitioner in this case. It was also stated in the petition that on the same day another case of similar nature was registered against Ramchandra and in that case also after investigation the Police submitted a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer and in spite of the fact that evidence which was produced in that case was similar to the evidence which was produced in the case filed by the petitioner, the accused Ramchandra was acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer by his judgment dated 28th July, 1989. The number of case in which Ramchandra was tried was Criminal Regular Case No. 432/87. Thus according to the petitioner two cases of similar nature were registered by the Police under Sections 52-A and 68-A of the Copy Rights Act one was against the petitioner Gopal and the other was against Ramchandra. Both the cases were heard by the learned Chief Judicial at Magistrate, Barmer and evidence in both the cases was similar. In Criminal Regular Case No. 432/87 the accused Ramchandra was acquitted. But in Criminal Regular Case No. 433/87 State v. Gopal the accused Gopal was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

( 4 ) THE ground on which this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed is that it is unlawful to convict the petitioner when on similar facts another person Ramchandra had been acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer. The plea of unlawful discrimination has been founded on the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The sum and substance of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer is in violation of Article 14 of t