S.K. Dubey, J.--1. The following question arising in the case has been referred to the Full Bench:

"Whether, without registration under section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957, criminal prosecution for infringement of copyright is or is not maintainable.

2. Respondent herein claims to be the author of the story entitled "Benam Rishte" said to have been published in the magazine Filmi Duniya in March 1985. He alleges that the two applicants herein have made a film by name 'Naseeb Apna Apna." based on the story "Benam Rishte." There was some delay in the initial proceedings for reasons which are not relevant at this stage, 'Hit ultimately the competent Court took cognizance and issued process to the two accused persons who are the present applicants. They have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings. When the case was being heard by one of us (Bhat, C.J.), relying on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Mishra Bandhu Kalyalaya v. S. Koshal (1970 JLJ 723 = AIR 1970 MP 261), it was argued that registration of copyright is mandatory and without registration, the complainant has no copy right which can be said to have been infringed and the person who claims a copy right has no legal remedy against any such alleged infringement. The question was referred to the Full Bench and that is how the matter has come before us. We have heard Shri S.S. Jha, Advocate for the applicants, Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Advocate with Shri I.K. Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent as also the learned Advocate General who assisted the Court.

3. In Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya's case (1970 JLJ 723 = AIR 1970 MP 261), This Court adverted to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1957 (for short the Act) and came to the conclusion that registration was mandatory and without registration, no person can have a cause of action. We find that High Courts of Calcutta, Allahabad, Madras, Kerala and Patna have dissented from the view taken in Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya's case (see Satsang v. Kiran Chandra) AIR 1972C11. 533, Nav Sahitya Prakashan v. Anand Kumar AIR 1981 All. 200, M.C. Productions v. A Sudaresan AIR 1976 Mad. 22, R. Madhavan v. S.K. Naval AIR 1938 Kerala 39, Radha Kishna v. State of Bihar 1979 Cr.L.J. 757. The High Court of Orissa has taken view in support of the view taken in Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya's case - see Brandaban Sahu v. Rajendra Supudhi AIR 1986 Ori. 210).

4. We may in this connection refer to a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in errobbadera Rao v. B.N. Sharma (AIR 1960 AP 415) where it considered the provisions of Hyderabad Copyright Act 1934 containing a specific provision that there can be no legal remedy against infringement of copyright without registration of the copyright. It was held that without registration there could be no cause of action. We way also advert to the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 relating to trade marks. The Act contemplates registration of trade marks. Section 27 specifically declares that no person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trade mark. Reference may also be made to section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 which specifically bars institution of a suit to enforce right arising from a contract under the Act on behalf of any person suing as a partner in the firm, against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner of the firm unless the firm is registered.

5. The Act was enacted replacing the Indian Copyright Act 1914 and the Copyright Act of 1911 passed by the Parliament of United Kingdom as modified in its application in India in Copyright Act, 1914. As the law stood before the Act, there was no statutory provision for registration of copyright and therefore, the question of non-registration affecting legal remedy did not arise.

6. Chapter III of the Act deals with Copyright. Section 14 explains the meaning of copyrig