Reproduction of a substantial part of an artistic work without the permission of the copyright owner constitutes infringement of copyright.

These two appeals arises out of the acquittal of the respondents in two criminal cases, which were filed by the appellant under Section 63 of the Copyright Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for infringement of certain copyrights which he had in a picture of Tiruvalluvar.

2. The complaint of the appellant was as below : He had drawn a picture of Saint Tiruvalluvar, from his own imagination on the basis of his intensive study of Thirukkural for over thirty years. He had registered this picture under the Copyright Act. He had also published in the papers that he had the copyright of the portrait of Tiruvalluvar as published in the several dailies. Sangu Ganesan, the respondent in C.A. 913 of 1969 who is the proprietor of Srimagal Company, has printed pictures of Thiruvalluvar and used it for the calendars. He had fixed the prince of thousand calendars at Rs. 1330/-. These pictures were similar to the picture the appellant has drawn and registered. Khanna and Ashok (father and son) who figured as respondents 1 and 2 in C.A. 914 of 1969, are dealers in pictures and calendars at No. 111 Devaraja Mudali St. Madras. The first respondent approached the appellant and suggested to him the desirability of printing small size pictures of Thiruvalluvar. The appellant told him that he had no power to alter either the size or the prince as fixed by the Govt. He did not give any permission to him or to any one to print any pictures of Thiruvalluvar as suggested by him. While so, both the respondents printed and published pictures of Thiruvalluvar, to be used for calendars. They had left some space lower down in these pictures, for the printing of calendar proper. The pictures thus printed and published were exactly like the picture which the appellant has drawn and registered and in which he had a copyright. With these allegations, he filed two complaints separately one against (1) Sangu Ganesan and (2) another against the respondent in C.A. 914 of 1969, under Section 63 of the Act. When questioned, Sangu Ganesan denied the infringement of the copyright attributed to him. The first respondent in C.A. 914 of 1969 stated that he had nothing to do with the case. The second respondent, his son, added that he has purchased these pictures from certain dealers at Sivakasi. On a comparison of the pictures said to have been drawn by the appellant with the other pictures complained of by him, the learned Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that they were neither identical nor similar. With this finding, he acquitted all the respondents. These acquittals are now challenged by the appellant in these two appeals.

3. Under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of (a) the copyright in a work, or (b) any other right conferred by this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extent to one year, or with fine, or with both. Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 states :-

"For the purposes of this Act, 'copyright' means the exclusive right, by virtue of, and subject to the provisions of, this Act -

(a) ......... (b) in the case of an artistic work, to do or otherwise the doing of any of the following acts, namely :-

(i) to reproduce the work in any material form;

(ii) to publish the work;

(iii) to include the work in any cinematograph film;

(iv) to make any adaptation of the work;

(v) to do in relation to an adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in clauses (i) to (iii); ... ... ..."

" Artistic work" *

as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 means, (i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan) as engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possess artistic quality, (ii) an architectural work of art; and (iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship. Section 51 of the Act deals with the infringement of copyright. Sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 51 of the Act states that when any person, without a licen