Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Prithwiraj Ganguly – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 1890 of 2019
Decided on : 22-03-2024
Copyright Act - Quashing of proceeding - Sections 63/69 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 63/69 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and their application in the case. It highlighted the requirement of obtaining a public performance license from the copyright owner or a registered society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, and the implications of the government notification and the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the registration of copyright societies. The court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dayle De’Souza vs Government of India Through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and Anr., Criminal Appeal No. …. of 2021, emphasizing the vicarious liability of a company and its officers under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 550 of 2017 arising out of Durgapur Police Station Case No. 194 dated April 1, 2017 under Sections 63/69 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner contested the allegations of unauthorized use of copyrighted music/sound recordings and challenged the competence of the complainant to issue a public performance license.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the allegations and found that the complainant, Opposite Party No.2, lacked valid registration under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, and therefore, could not claim ownership or issue a public performance license. The court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dayle De’Souza vs Government of India, emphasizing the vicarious liability of a company and its officers under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the competence of the complainant to issue a public performance license, the validity of the allegations, and the vicarious liability of the petitioner as an officer of the company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Copyright Act, the government notification, and the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to establish the lack of competence of the complainant to issue a public performance license. It also applied the principles of vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as established in the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for quashing the proceeding and directed the trial court to add the company as a party to the case and proceed with the trial.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 550 of 2017 arising out of Durgapur Police Station Case No. 194 dated April 1, 2017 under Sections 63/69 of the Copyright Act, 1957 pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd court at Durgapur including the Order dated August 24, 2017 passed therein.
2. The petitioner states that Opposite Party no.2 as purportedly the authorized representative of one M/s Phonographic Performance Ltd. (herein after referred to as ‘PPL’) has filed a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Durgapur Police Station on March 31, 2017 against the petitioner no.2, wrongly recognizing him as the Assistant General Manager of I Q City (Mani Group) of Sovapur Road, Birja, Jemua, District – Burdwan, Durgapur – 713206 and the same was received by the Durgapur Police Station on April 1, 2017 and a First Information Report was drawn up on the basis of such written complaint and the same was registered as Durgapur P.S. Case No. 194 of 2017 under Sections 63/69 of the Copyright Act, 1957
3. The allegations leveled in the written complaint are:-
It has come to our knowledge that one Mr. Prithwiraj Ganguly (AGM) of I Q CITY (Mani Group) of Sovapur Road, Bijra, Jemua, Dist- Burdwan, Durgapur- 713206 organized one event under the name and style of “I Q City FUN UTSAV” on 02.12.2016 to 04/12/2016 at their aforesaid premises wherein copyrighted music/sound recordings owned by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) was/were played/communication without obtaining Public Performance License from PPL.
By way of sending letters, emails and telephonic conversation, personal visits, it had already been communicated to said Mr. Prithwiraj Ganguly (AGM) of I Q CITY (Mani Group) Sovapur Road, Bijra, Jemua, Dist – Burdwan, Durgapur – 713206 that obtaining Public Performance License from Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) is mandatory for usage of copyrighted music/sound recordings owned by PPL for their event “I Q CITY FUN UTSAV” held on 02.12.2016 to 04.12.2016. Therefore, it was/is within the knowledge of Mr. Prithwiraj Ganguly that obtaining Public Performance License for usage of copyrighted music controlled by PPL was/is an essential requirement for usage of copyrighted music/sound recordings controlled by PPL during their above said event as per the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. However willfully and deliberately Mr. Prithwiraj Ganguly has failed to apply and obtain the public performance license to be issued by Phonographic Performance Limited and thereby has infringed the public performance copyright of PPL.”
4. The petitioner states that by an Office Memorandum No. F. No. 06-04/2016-CRB/LU dated October 6, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Copy Right Division, Government of India, the following has been put to public notice:-
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid registration under Section 33 of the Copyright Act for a copyright society to issue a public performance license, and t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of impleading the company as an accused for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of fulfilling the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC and the liability of directors in cor....
For personal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act, the company must be impleaded as a primary accused; non-impleadment is curable and amendments should be permitted if they do not alter the comp....
When no offence is attributable to the Company, it is not possible to attach liability on the Managing Director by the deeming provisions of Section 141 of the N.I. Act.
Prosecution of company is mandatory condition precedent under Section 141 NI Act for vicarious liability of directors; complaints against directors quashed without impleading company.
Dishonour of cheque – Company is a juristic person and Company can have criminal liability—In case of commission of offence by company, express condition of company being joined is imperative to attr....
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be amended to include the name of the company as an accused, even if the company was not originally named as an accused in t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
