Section 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is not arbitrary and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it provides sufficient guidelines and safeguards to prevent arbitrary action by police officers.

VERMA, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the writ petitions involve similar facts and law, challenging the vires of various Sections of the Copy Right Act, therefore, are being decided together.

( 2 ) THE facts are similar, therefore, the facts are being taken from D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 660/89 (Girish Chandani v. Union of India ). The petitioner is carrying the business of keeping library of Video Cassettes, T. Vs. and V. C. Rs. for letting them on hire to the customers for viewing them at their homes. The petitioner submits that even though he is keeping Video Cassettes which are duly certified, films of which the copy rights are sold by the producers to the copy right holders and were prepared after obtaining necessary licence and consent from the owner of the copy right and he purchases video cassettes from the market which are again supplied by either the producer or the copy right holder or the persons having necessary licence and consent from the owner of the copy right holders etc. , he still apprehends that powers under Section 64 (1) can be invoked against the him without any necessity.

( 3 ) EVEN though, no overt act has been taken or initiated against the petitioner but still because of the provisions of Section 64 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, apprehending that in case the provisions of Section 64 are not declared ultra vires on the ground of arbitrariness and for the reason that no guidelines have been provided in the said Section as to check the police officer concerned in seizing the cassettes from the video parlour. The petitioner would suffer harassment and unnecessary litigation, if the provisions of Section 64 of the Act are allowed to remain intact and not declared ultra vires. In the writ petition, the petitioner had also challenged Section 19, Section 52-A and Section 64 but the arguments have been confined to the challenge of Section 64 only and no arguments are addressed on other Sections of the Copy Right Act, 1957.

( 4 ) THE petitioner apprehends that provisions of Section 64 itself gives arbitrary and naked powers without any guidelines to the police officer to seize any material from the Shop and thus, drag the video owners to the litigation. He has given instances in the petition that police officer usually demands for video cassettes to be given to them free of charge for viewing it at their homes and in case, on any reason either the video cassette is not available or it is not given free of charge, there is likelihood that police officer shall misuse his powers and try to seize the material for prosecution under the various provisions of the Act, therefore, prays that Section 64 of the Act may be declared ultra vires. Section 64 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 reads as under :-64. "powers of Police to seize infringing copies : (1) Any Police Officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector may, if he is satisfied that an offence under Section 63 in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is likely. to be, committed, seize without warrant, all copies of work, and all plates used for the purpose of making infringing copies of the Work, wherever found, all copies and plates so seized, shall, as soon as practicable, be produced before a Magistrate. (2) Any person having an interest in any copies of work seized under sub-section (1) may, within fifteen days of the such seizure, make an application to the Magistrate for such copies being restored to him and the Magistrate after hearing the applicant and the complainant and making such further inquiry, as may be necessary, shall make such order on the application, as he may deem fit. "

( 5 ) BEFORE discussing the matter any further, it shall be necessary to go through the scheme of the Copy Right Act along with their aims and objects to the Original Act, 1957 and significant amendments made in the years 1984, 1992 and 1994. For the purpose of this case, amendment of 1984, Amendin