These two applications arise out of the same proceedings and we propose to decide them by one order.

The facts giving rise to the present proceedings may be briefly summarised as follows :-

The complainant Ali Mohamad who is an Assistant Registrar of the Jammu and Kashmir University, Publication Branch, filed a complaint against the petitioners on the allegation that by publishing notes on certain books namely, Modern English Prose, Foot Hills Gathering Bunds, Selection Prose and Little Treasure of English Verse the petitioners have infringed the Copy Right of the University and have thus committed offence under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are the proprietors of the press where the notes to these books were published and the petitioner No. 3 is the person who bad prepared these notes. The petitioners came up to this court in order to quash the proceedings on the ground that on the allegations made in the petition of complaint no case for criminal prosecution has been made out. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the notes did not constitute a colourable imitation of the original books but fall within the purview of fair dealing and are merely in the nature of guide to the students in order to appreciate the books prescribed by the university in its syllabus, As the point involved in the case was of first impression and there was no authority of this court, the case which was originally heard by a single bench has, been referred to us.

Section 63 of the Copy right Act makes punishable the infringement of the copy right in a work. In order to determine whether or not the offence is punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, we have got to take into consideration the provisions of Section 51 and 52 of the Copyright Act.

Section 51 of the Copy right Act runs as follows ;-

"Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed: -

a) When any person without a license granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licenso so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act-

i) does any thing, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the Copyright, or,

ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the performance of the work in public where such performance constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such performance would be an infringement of copyright, or

b) When any person -

i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or

ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to effect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or,

iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or

iv) imports (except for the private and domestic use of the importer) into India any infringing copies of the work.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this Section, the reproduction of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film should be deemed to be an "infringing copy".

Section 52 of the Copyright Act, however, defines various acts which do not constitute infringement of the Copyright and the relevant clauses of this Section, which fall for determination, in the present case are as follows: -

(a) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of;

(ii) Criticism or review whether of that work or of any other work.

(b) A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purpose of reporting current events.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before us was that as the intention of the petitioners in publiching these notes was merely to provide a guide to the students to understand the books prescribed by the university and amounted to a criticism or a review of the original books or at any rate, a