Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. The applicants have invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the complaint being II-C.R. No. 3027/12 registered with Mandvi police station, Mandvi-Kachchh for the offences punishable under sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The applicants are small shopkeepers of a gift shop under the banner 'Real Gift Shop'. The shop sells gift articles/merchandise which the proprietors procure from wholesale merchants in Bhuj and Mumbai. On 05.05.2002, one Shri K.G. Pathak, identifying himself as an Investigation Officer of one Kangaroo Agency Pvt. Ltd. visited the shop of the applicants. Under an authority to investigate breach of copyright on behalf of two multinationals - Procter & Gamble and Hindustan Unilever Ltd., the individual carried out a raid. Shri Pathak then lodged the complaint in question with Mandvi police station.

2.2 According to the contents as narrated in the complaint, Shri Pathak found the gift shop selling duplicate products like shampoos, soaps and other toiletries of the two multinationals and therefore according to the complainant, the shop had infringed the copyrights of the two companies namely Procter & Gamble and Hindustan Unilever and therefore was liable of penal action under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. B.Y. Mankad appearing for the applicants - accused has taken me through the contents of the complaint and made submissions. In Shri Mankad's submission, apart from anything else, the plain reading of the complaint would indicate that no case for invoking the provisions of Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act are made out. He submitted that in order to invoke the provisions of the Copyright Act there has to be a principal work which has to be a literary, dramatic, musical, artistic work or a cinematographic film. It could also be a sound recording, a programme, performance in which a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists.

3.1 Reading the complaint would indicate an allegation of sale of duplicate goods such as soap, shampoos etc which apparently would not attract penal action under the Copyright Act according to Mr. B.Y. Mankad. Shri Mankad has relied on the judgements of this court in the case of Binita Rahul Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in 2009(3) GLR 2688 and a decision of a Single Judge of this court rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8903 of 2013 dated 02.12.2003 which followed the judgement in Binita Rahul Shah (Supra)'s case.

4. Mr. Himanshu Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. To the submission of Shri Mankad that the agency and the person behind it - the first informant who are found to be non-existent, Shri Patel submits that now that the State is prosecuting the applicants, this fact is insignificant. Mr. Patel has further submitted that the entire transaction is a question of investigation and therefore powers under Section 482 be not invoked and the investigation must be allowed to proceed.

5. Reading of the complaint reflects that the complainant under an authority of being an Investigating Officer of an Agency raided the shop of the accused. The raid in question revealed that the shopkeepers/proprietors - applicants were selling duplicate goods/toiletries of Procter & Gamble and Hindustan Unilever. Selling of such merchandise, according to the complainant was in violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and therefore the applicants were liable for penal action under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Evidently, therefore, provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 were invoked for sale of such merchandise being shampoo, soaps etc.

5.1 Whether such transactions could fall within the purview of the Copyright Act, 1957 begs the question. A close reading of the Statements, Objects and Reasons of the Copyright Act, 1957 wo