AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for quashing of the complaint dated 18.04.1998 (Annexure P-2) and the Istgasa/police report dated 24.04.1998 (Annexure P-4) under Sections 63, 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957 filed by the police against the petitioner and all subsequent proceedings in the Court arising out of the said police report.
(2.) IT has been contended in this petition that the petitioner owns a video parlour namely Tejindra Video Parlour at Mandi Guru Har Sahai, District Ferozepur. He has obtained licence from the Government of Punjab, under the Punjab Exhibitions of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Player (Regulation) Rules, 1989, therefore, is authorized to run video movie shows in his video parlour. Copy of the licence, which was renewed from time to time is annexed at Annexure P-1. Since the owner of Poonam Cinema, Guru Har Sahai was inimical towards the petitioner as his business was adversely affected due to running of the video parlour of the petitioner, filed a complaint dated 18.04.1998 (Annexure P-2). On the basis of the said complaint, police raided the video parlour of the petitioner. Movie show of the film 'Military Raj' was going on in his video parlour and the video cassette recorder and the cassette of film 'Military Raj' were taken into possession vide recovery memo dated 18.04.1998 (Annexure P-3). A perusal of the recovery memo would show that the cassette of the film 'Military Raj' was original master print and, therefore, according to the petitioner, the provisions of the Copyright Act have not been violated. On the basis of the said recovery memo, the police submitted its report on 24.04.1998, copy of which is attached as Annexure P-4. It has been further stated that the petitioner approached the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Justice and Home Affairs vide his letter dated 22.01.2001 to clarify the position with regard to his prosecution on the ground that when he was (sic) valid licence how could he be prosecuted specially when he was (sic) master print for viewing the film. In reply to the said letter of the petitioner, Govt. of Punjab, Department of Justice and Home Affairs vide its letter dated 21.03.2001 gave the following reply : "Sub. : In connection with misunderstanding regarding running of home viewer cassette in V.D. Hall. Sir, I have been directed to write in regard to your letter dated 22.01.2000, on the subject mentioned above, that you have run/shown film of "Military Raj" on V.D.O. Parlour which was done in accordance with rules (Rule 15) issued vide Punjab Govt. Notification No. G.M.R.-12/P.A.-11/52 S, 9/89 dated 13.1.1989 and as per the letter 10/14/98-6G2 dated 13.11.98 issued by the Punjab Govt. there is no such provision for obtaining commercial certificate for running such movie on Video Parlour. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Swaran Lata Supdt. Home-2 Branch" On notice having been issued, the respondent-State has filed its reply, wherein it has been submitted by the State that the proprietor of M/s Poonam Cinema, Guru Har Sahai was authorized by the producer of the film 'Military Raj' vide memo/letter dated 1.4.1998 to keep an eye on illegal telecast of the picture and the commercial video rights have not given to anyone else except Mr. Vikramjit Singh, proprietor of M/s Poonam Cinema, Guru Har Sahai. Since no one else had these rights and the petitioner had not taken permission of Mr. Vikramjit Singh, he could not have showed this film in his video parlour and, therefore, had violated the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. As per the police report dated 24.04.1998, the petitioner had infringed the Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State and have gone through the Sections 63, 64 and 53-A of the Copyright Act, 1957. A perusal of the complaint and the police report would show that none of the offence, as alleged in the said complaint/police report, is made out against the petitioner under the Copyright Act, 1957. Further in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been granted licence under the Punjab Exhibitions of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Player (Regulation) Rules/Act, 1989, which was valid on that day and the petitioner was using the original master print for showing the movie 'Military Raj', no offence under the Copyright Act can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. This reasoning is further fortified by a perusal of the above reproduced letter dated 21.03.2001 of the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Justice and Home Affairs which clarifies the position with regard to the licence, which the petitioner was holding. In the light of the above, this petition is allowed. Complaint dated 18.04.1998 (Annexure P-2) and the police report dated 24.04.1998 (Annexure P- 4) are hereby quashed. All consequential proceedings arising out of the complaint dated 18.04.1998 and the police report dated 24.04.1998 are also quashed. Petition allowed.;