Back
High Court Of Delhi
N.C.SIPPY - Appellant
Versus
PREM KUMAR - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 1252 of 1984
Decided On : 03/18/1986
COPY RIGHT ACT - SECTION 63 - OFFENCE OF INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT - ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA - VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS - SECTION 69 - INTERPRETATION - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - REQUIREMENT OF CLEAR AND EXPLICIT AVERMENT REGARDING ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF DIRECTORS IN BUSINESS OF COMPANY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 465 AND 467 INDIAN PENAL CODE AND OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 63 OF THE ACT - FORGERY - DEFINITION - ELEMENTS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN FALSE DOCUMENT AND FALSE STATEMENT - APPLICATION TO FACTS OF CASE.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a film producer, filed a complaint against the petitioners, directors of a company, for infringement of copyright under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint alleged that the petitioners had prepared and sold unauthorized video tapes of the respondent's film, "Gorakhdhanda." The petitioners challenged the complaint, arguing that it was vague and did not disclose any specific acts or omissions on their part that would render them criminally liable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The court found that the petitioners were directors of the company that produced the infringing video tapes and that they were actively involved in the day-to-day operations of the company. The court also held that the offence of infringement of copyright was a continuing offence, and that the petitioners could be held liable even if the infringing copies were prepared prior to the amendment of the Act in 1984. However, the court found that the complaint did not disclose any offence under Sections 465 or 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with the offence of forgery. The court held that the video tapes in question did not purport to be the product of the petitioners' company, but were merely reproductions of the respondent's film. Therefore, the court quashed the impugned order insofar as it related to the offences under Sections 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act? 2. Whether the petitioners could be held vicariously liable for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act? 3. Whether the offence of infringement of copyright was a continuing offence? 4. Whether the complaint disclosed any offence under Sections 465 or 467 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act because it contained clear and explicit averments regarding the petitioners' active participation in the business of the company that produced the infringing video tapes. 2. The court held that the petitioners could be held vicariously liable for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act because they were directors of the company that produced the infringing video tapes and were actively involved in the day-to-day operations of the company. 3. The court held that the offence of infringement of copyright was a continuing offence because the Act defines infringement broadly to include not only the making of infringing copies, but also the selling, letting for hire, or offering for sale or hire of infringing copies. 4. The court held that the complaint did not disclose any offence under Sections 465 or 467 of the Indian Penal Code because the video tapes in question did not purport to be the product of the petitioners' company, but were merely reproductions of the respondent's film.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition in part, quashing the impugned order insofar as it related to the offences under Sections 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
( 1 ) THIS "petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) is directed against order dated 12th September 1984 of a Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the petitioners to face trial for offence under Section 63 of the Copy Rights Act (for short the Act ) and Sections 4651467134, Indian Penal Code (for short Indian Penal Code ).
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition succinctly are that the respondent-Prem Kumar is carrying on the business of film making under the name and style of M/s. Belco Movies at Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The said firm is a member of the Motion Pictures Association, Delhi. On 4th September 1984 he instituted a complaint against Shri Hira Sobhachand Choithramani and ten others under Section 63 of the Act and Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 380, 1pc. He has averred that Shri Hira Sobhagchand Choithramani, accused No. 1, was the managing director of M/s. Esquire Video Films Service Private Limited, accused No. 2 (short the Company ), which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Accused Nos. 3 to II are the other directors of the company. All of them are carrying on the business of film making etc. at Bombay. The Company s ostensible business is to acquire rights to prepare tui sale video recording of the films produced by the film producers in the country. The Company has "an Esquire Presentation" as its monogram and "trimurti" as its insignia and displays the same on the video tapes in respect of which they are supposed to have acquired the rights of making, selling and distribution.
( 3 ) IT is further averred that the complainant-respondent produced a cinematograph film entitled "gorakhdhanda". It was completed in 1979 and was duly certified for "unrestricted public exhibition" by the Central Board of Film Censores, Government of India, vide Certificate issued on 14th June, 1979. The said certificate is valid upto 13th June, 1989. The trailer of the film was also certified for unrestricted public exhibition by a separate certificate dated 22nd June, 1979. Thereafter, the complainant got the film duly registered with the Motion Pictures Association on 6th October, 1979. In August, 1984 when the respondent was negotiating with some parties for the exhibition of the aforesaid film at Delhi, he came to know that the accused persons had prepared video tapes of the said film and had put the same for sale in the market, thereupon, he deputed his employee Rakesh to find out if it was true. The latter went to a video library in Bhagirath Palace and brought one video tape of the aforesaid film. It was displayed on VCR and was found to be a copy of his film "gorakhdhanda". The video tape bore the inscription "an Esquire Presentation" as also the insignia "trimurti". Feeling shocked over this discovery he asked his employee Rakesh to bring the original video-tape from which the said copy had been prepared. Accordingly, Rakesh brought another copy which appeared to be original copy of the aforesaid film. The complainant further alleged that he also discovered that the accused had also sold rights of display of their video tapes to M/s. Kesar Video Private Limited, a company carrying on business outside India. He asserted that the copy right in the aforesaid film exclusively belonged to him and the accused persons had committed the offence of piracy by preparing unauthorised video tapes of the same. He also alleged that all the accused persons were living and working at Bombay and they were actively participating in the day-to-day working of the company. Hence, all of them were criminally liable for the offences of infringement of his copy right and forgery etc.
( 4 ) THE respondent stepped in the witness box and deposed to the foregoing facts. He also examined Shri Charanjit Dhawan, the story writer of the picture "gorakhdhanda" and his employee Rakesh Kumar Kaira in support of his contention that he had the exclusive copy
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
