IMPORTANT POINT
Knowledge of copyright infringement is essential for liability under Section 63 of the Copyright Act; mere allegations without evidence of awareness do not suffice.

ORDER :

Accused Nos.2 to 5, 7 and 8 in C.C.No.625/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the said case. The allegation against the petitioners is that the first petitioner Company in which petitioners 2 to 6, (Accused Nos. 3 to 5, 7 & 8) function as Managing Director and Whole Time Directors respectively, knowingly infringed the copyright of the de facto complainant/first respondent by enabling the publication of a book of the first accused by name ‘Spain Kalaporinte Nadu’. Thus, the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

2. The case arose upon a private complaint filed by the first respondent before the learned Magistrate alleging that the first accused published the above book making use of the second accused (first petitioner) Printing and Publishing Company by copying word to word about 58 pages of the travelogues published by the first respondent in October, 2011 in his blog ‘chilayaathrakal.blogspot.com’. It is alleged that the first accused resorted to unscrupulous plagiarism by not caring to even edit his work so as to avoid references about the wife and daughter of the first respondent which were contained in the travelogues published in his blog.

3. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the first respondent, found that there was sufficient ground to proceed against accused Nos.1 to 8, and accordingly took the complaint to files as C.C.No.625/2018, and issued summons to the accused to answer the charge of Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that the averments in the complaint will not constitute the aforesaid offence as against them. For the above reason, the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

5. As already stated above, the first petitioner herein is a Printing and Publishing Company run by the second petitioner as Managing Director and petitioners 3 to 6 as Whole Time Directors. They are arraigned in the complaint as the accused Nos.2 to 5, 7 and 8 respectively. The allegation against them is that they facilitated the publication of a book by name ‘Spain Kalaporinte Nadu’ which the first accused managed to prepare by resorting to plagiarism by copying the contents of the travelogues published by the first respondent in his blog. It is stated by the first respondent in the complaint that when he came to know about the above misdeed of the first accused in December, 2017, he posted the matter on his facebook page by way of a live video. On being thus informed of such plagiarism by the first accused, the second accused (first petitioner herein) is said to have sent a letter dated 29.12.2017 to the first respondent stating that they have withdrawn all copies of the infringing works from the public domain. However, the first respondent was aggrieved by the fact that the copies of the aforesaid book of the first accused were still available in the market. It is under the above circumstances that the first respondent resorted to legal proceedings against the first accused as well as the petitioners herein. In addition to the criminal prosecution launched by the instant proceedings, the first respondent is also seen to have instituted O.S.No.3/2019 before the District Court, Ernakulam against the first accused and the second petitioner company alleging copyright violation.

6. As far as the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the crime is that the offender should have knowingly infringed or abetted the infringement of the copyright in a work. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the aforesaid Section is extracted hereunder:

“63. Offence of infringement o