JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as “the Code”) to quash the entire proceeding against the petitioners vide G.R. Case No.236 of 1997 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur including the order dated 30.01.2004 taking cognizance of offence under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 (hereinafter called as “the Act, 1957”) and issuance of process.

2. Mr.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on getting credible information, the Crime Branch made raid over the printing press of the petitioners for printing “Sachitra Madhu Barnabodha” in their printing press. According to him, the FIR was lodged against the petitioners for forging the design of “Chhabila Madhu Barnabodha” published by Sri Debabrata Kar, proprietor of Orissa Book Emporium, Cuttack-2. But actually, there is no forgery of any design of publishing “Sachitra Madhu Barnabodha” or pirating any contents or the design of “Chhabila Madhu Barnabodha”.

3. Mr.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that although the FIR was lodged under Sections 420/469/471 IPC read with Section 63 of the Act, 1957, there is no basis for filing charge sheet against the petitioners for commission of such offence. Moreover, learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur took cognizance for the offence under Section 63 of the Act, 1957 vide order dated 22.01.2001 for which the punishment prescribed is one year and the period of limitation for taking cognizance is up to three years whereas in the present case, the cognizance of offence was taken long after three years of period of limitation. According to him, the order of taking cognizance is barred by limitation.

4. Mr.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that against the order dated 22.01.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur, the petitioners have preferred Criminal Revision No.7 of 2002 (C.R.P. No.16/2001-GDC) before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur where the revisional Court allowed the revision and remitted the matter back to the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur to pass an order afresh on the question of limitation after hearing both parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur, after hearing both parties, passed order on 30.01.2004 confirming his earlier order dated 22.01.2001 and took cognizance of the offence under Section 63 of the Act, 1957. Thereafter, against the said order dated 30.01.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur, the petitioners preferred Crl. Revision No.1/05 (Crl. R.P.19/04 GDC) before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur and vide order dated 2.3.2005, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur confirmed the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur against which the present CRLMC has been filed to quash the entire proceeding so also the order of taking cognizance.

6. Mr.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners assails the order dated 30.01.2004 taking cognizance, which has been duly confirmed vide order dated 2.3.2005 on the ground that the period of limitation is to commence from the date of FIR or date of occurrence but not on the offence for which the registration of the FIR was made. Moreover, he submitted that in the instant case, although there is registration of FIR under Sections 420/469/471 IPC read with Section 63 of the Act, 1957, but the investigation cumulated by filing charge sheet for the offence under Section 63 of the Act, 1957. Although there is no provision in the Code giving time limit for investigation but there is provision for period of limitation under Section 468 of the Code to take cognizance of the certain offences for which investigation has to be completed within the prescribed period. This aspect has not been gone through by the Courts below for which the order of taking cognizance, which has been confirmed in the Cri