SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.M. MODAK, J.
Dattatray Bapu Dighe – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 211 of 2024
Decided On : 22-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pankaj Sayajirao Shinde
For the Respondent: S.E. Phad

Registration of copyright is not mandatory for initiating criminal prosecution under the Copyright Act, as rights are conferred to the first owner without prior registration.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 63, 63B, 65 - Requirement of copyright registration for prosecution - The court examined whether registration of copyright is mandatory prior to initiating criminal proceedings for copyright infringement. The applicant argued that the first informant, as a power of attorney holder, lacked standing to prosecute without registration. The court noted that registration is not a prerequisite for criminal action under the Copyright Act, as the Act provides rights to the first owner without requiring prior registration. (Paras 1, 10, 12, 14)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Authority of power of attorney holder - The court considered the validity of a power of attorney holder initiating prosecution for copyright infringement, concluding that such authority is sufficient for the purpose of filing a complaint. (Paras 8, 15)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of copyright infringement for publishing duplicated books without authorization from Relx India Pvt. Ltd. The first informant, authorized by the company, conducted a raid and seized duplicated materials.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the applicant's argument that registration is mandatory for prosecution, affirming that the first owner of copyright has rights without registration.

Issues: The primary issue was whether copyright registration is necessary before launching a prosecution for infringement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that registration is not a prerequisite for criminal prosecution under the Copyright Act, emphasizing the distinct rights conferred by the Act.

Result: Revision application dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

1. The only issue arisen in this revision is “whether registration of a copyright is required” prior to launching a prosecution. Relx India Private Limited (REED ELSEVIER INDIA P. LTD.) Gurgaon, State of Haryana is engaged in the business of publishing books. They have authorised Eagle Eye Detectives Proprietor-Amiya Saxena to take action for publication of duplicated books in the name of the said company.

2. The first informant Saxena got information that such duplicated books are available at Jai Ambe Zerox at Parel. On 13 June 2017 one Jignesh Patel was found there and he has not noticed any duplicated books and materials. However, when he visited Janani Zerox, he foud Dattatraya Bapu Dighe- applicant present there. During search he found duplicated books shown to be published in the name of Relx India Pvt. Ltd. which costs about Rs.10,703/-. He has also seized hard disk of a computer. He found various folders in the computer containing the soft files of various books published by Relx India Pvt. Ltd.

3. He realised that the applicant has copied the books published by the company and that is how the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 (In short ‘Copyright Act’) were breached. He lodged the complaint for violation of Sections 63, 63B and 65 of the Copyright Act. It was lodged with Bhoiwada Police Station. The applicant was arrested and chargesheet was filed before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar.

4. The Applicant initially filed Criminal Application No. 443/2020. In the meantime, the charges were framed against him. The Division Bench granted a liberty to challenge the order of framing of charge and that is how the matter is placed before this Court.

5. I have heard learned Advocate Shri Pankaj Shinde for the applicant at length and learned APP Mrs. Phad appearing for the State.

6. Perused the record and the judgments cited on behalf of the applicant. During investigation the police have collected following materials:

(i) The statements of police who were part of the raiding party.

(ii) The statement of wife of the deceased owner - the shop is rented to the applicant.

(iii) The Panchnama dated 15 June 2017 - seizure of the books, expansion portable drive and hard disk from CPU.

(iv) Arrest form dated 15 June 2017.

(v) The bail bond furnished before the police. (Grievance is raised that the police have no authority to grant bail because offences are non-bailable).

(vi) The letter sent to Forensic Expert dated 7 November 2017 and 23 August 2017.

(vii) The order by Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 13 June 2017 directing Senior Police Inspector, Boiwada Police Station to register an FIR on the basis of a complaint lodged by the first informant.

(viii) The complaint given by the first informant to Boiwada Police Station;

(ix) Copy of the power of attorney given by Relx India Pvt. Ltd. to the Eagle Eye Detectives.

(x) Copy of the certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Copyrights, United States of America. It is issued in the name of Elsevier Incorporation.

(xi) Copy of Certificate of Registration as per Trade Marks Act in the name of ELSEVIER by Indian Authorities.

(xii) Copy of Certificate of incorporation issued by Deputy Registrar of Companies informing that name of REED ELSEVIER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED is changed to Relx India Pvt. Ltd.

7. Respondent No. 3 is the first informant and Respondent No. 4 is the publisher of books. They were privately served, however, they have not appeared.

8. Mr. Shinde made following submissions:

(a) The first informant is a power of attorney holder and not a registered holder of a copyright.

(b) The procedure for search and seizure is improper.

He relied upon the observations in case of:

(i) Bharat Vasantlal Mewawala vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Application No. 198 of 2016

(ii) Nirav Danishkumar Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2018 (2) Mh. L.J. (Cri) 752

(c) Relx India Company is not having a copyright registered with Indian authorities. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top