1. 'Ratri Sooryan'. This is the title of a Christian devotional song. Infringement of its copyright is the issue in a private criminal prosecution. The same is sought to be quashed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The ground urged at the time of hearing was that the copyright in the song was not registered.

2. Is registration of copyright mandatory to sustain a prosecution under section 63 of the Copyright Act ? This is the question to be answered to decide the Crl.M.C.

3. C.C.30/2010 is a complaint case. It is pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The 3rd respondent in the Crl.M.C is the complainant. The petitioner is the accused. Parties are referred to in this order as shown in the memorandum of Crl.M.C.

4. Annex-1 is a copy of the complaint. The material allegations in it are the following : The 3rd respondent is a lyricist. He in 1991 wrote the song 'ratri sooryan'. The song was set to tune by one Sri. John P. John. The song was given to an orchestra called 'Sruti' for including in the carol service of the Malankara Orthodox Christian Church. But the 3rd respondent continues to be the owner of the work. He happened to see a musical album telecast by the Jeevan TV. The album was directed by the petitioner. One of the songs included in the album was the aforesaid song of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner claimed himself to be the lyricist of the said song too. The 3rd respondent on comparison confirmed that the song telecast was exactly the song written by him. He requested the petitioner to remove the song from the album. The petitioner agreed to it, but did not do it. He committed an offence under section 63 of the Copyright Act and also an offence under section 420 of the IPC.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The petitioner is a priest of the Malankara Orthodox Christian Church. He is the accused in C.C.30/2010. Cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on a protest complaint. The 3rd respondent claims himself to have written the song 'ratri sooryan'. His grievance is that his copyright in the song was infringed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under section 63 of the Copyright Act. For, according to the learned counsel, the copyright in the song is not registered in the name of the 3rd respondent. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. I shall consider the said decision later.

7. The 3rd respondent who claims to be the proprietor of the copyright has no case that the copyright in the song has been registered in his name. Therefore, if registration is a condition precedent for a criminal prosecution under the Copyright Act, C.C.30/2010 may have to be quashed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

8. A few provisions of the Copyright Act are to be considered. Infringement of copyright is a punishable offence under section 63. Section 51 states when a copyright is infringed. Section 14 gives the meaning of the term 'copyright'. Chapter X deals with registration of copyright. The provisions in Chapter X which are relevant for the present purpose are sections 44, 45 and 48. I shall consider these provisions.

9. Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the copyright in a work is liable for punishment under section 63. There is nothing in section 63 to suggest that registration of copyright is mandatory to prosecute the infringer thereunder. Section 63 does not at all insist on registration of copyright a condition precedent for prosecution.

10. Meaning of the term 'copyright' for the purposes of the Copyright Act is given in section 14. It means the exclusive right to do or authorize the doing of any of the acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of section 14 in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof. Section 14 also does not ind