Point of Law: Where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for, the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of such offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

ORDER :

The 1st petitioner/ANI Technologies Private Limited and its Directors are before this Court calling in question registration of FIR in Crime No.191 of 2017 and all further proceedings taken thereto.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The petitioners are also known as Ola or Ola Cabs. The 2nd respondent is Lahari Recording Company, one of the music companies in India. The petitioners who run Ola cabs launched a feature in their cabs/taxis where television/display sets are fixed to the headrest of the front seat where popular songs are played. This feature is known in the cabs circle as Ola play and such cabs are known as Ola Prime. Noticing that several of the contents of music videos and songs belonging to several of the films whose music copyrights the 2nd respondent owns were being displayed in Ola Prime cabs under the feature Ola play and on the ground that Ola cabs are indulging in commercial exploitation of copyright of the music whose copyright is owned by the 2nd respondent without purchasing such copyright registered a complaint on 13-05-2017 alleging infringement of Copyright Act, 1957 (‘the Act’ for short). On registration of the said complaint before the Additional Commissioner of Police, investigation is directed to be conducted and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.191 of 2017 alleging offences punishable under Sections 63 and 64 of the Act. At that juncture, the petitioners, the Company and the Directors of Ola Cabs have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject writ petition.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri C.V.Nagesh along with Mr. Mahesh S, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, learned High Court Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent -State and learned counsel Sri M.S.Shyam Sundar representing the 2nd respondent/ complainant.

4. The learned senior counsel would submit that Section 63 of the Act is a non-cognizable offence and once it is held to be a non-cognizable offence, Police had no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter and would further submit that the complaint itself does not make out ay offence of infringement of copyright as the entire complaint narrates that the complainant believes that copyright is violated and in criminal jurisprudence there had to be evidence and documentation and not the belief of the complainant is his emphatic submission.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant would contend that Section 63 cannot but be held to be a cognizable offence as the offence is punishable for a period up to 3 years and any offence punishable upto 3 years in terms of Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it becomes a cognizable offence and if it is a cognizable offence, no fault can be found in the investigation conducted. Commercial exploitation of the copyright that is held by the complainant cannot be permitted as identical agreements are entered into between the petitioners and the other net-work whose copyright they have and would submit that the writ petition be dismissed and trial be continued against the petitioners.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and the counsel for the 2nd respondent and have perused the material on record.

The Copyright Act, 1957:

7. Section 63 of the Act, when it was initially promulgated prescribed punishment for the offence of infringement of the copyright to be punishable with imprisonment, which extended to one year or fine or both. Therefore, the maximum punishment prescribed then was one year. The said provision of law underwent an amendment by the Amending Act 65 of 1984, the maximum offence punishable was changed from one year to three years. It is germane to notice the objects and reasons for bringing out said amendment.

“Pi