Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - (1.) Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 119 of 2017 (G.R. No. 442 of 2017) registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
(2.) Heard the parties.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he indulges himself in selling the duplicate electric wires of Havell's company for which he has been proceeded with for allegedly having committed the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Umesh Bharatbhai Thakkar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., in which case the accused was proceeded with for selling duplicate goods/toiletries of two brands, wherein in paragraph-5.2 relying upon earlier judgment of that Court in the case of Binita Rahul Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2009 3 GLR 2688, it was held as under:- "9. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.A. Mehta, as his Lordship then was) in the case of Binita Rahul Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2009 3 GLR 2688, has observed thus:- 19. Section 63 of the Copyright Act states that any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the Copyright in a work shall be punishable with infringement etc. The definition of the term infringing copy as appearing in section 2(m) of the Copyright Act reads as under : (m) "infringing copy" means,- (i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film; (ii) in relation to cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by any means; (iii) in relation to a sound recording, any other recording embodying the same sound recording, made by any means; (iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act; 20. A plain reading makes it clear that the principal work has to be either a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work; or should be a cinematographic film; or a sound recording, or a programme or performance in which a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under the provisions of Copyright Act. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the provisions cannot be attracted, much less any ingredient thereof is shown to have been satisfied even prima facie. The Court is not concerned in these proceedings whether any violation has occurred under the Provisions of Designs Act, because that is not even the case of the complainant. The settled legal position cannot be understood to mean laying down a proposition of law that the Court in these proceedings is precluded from even a plain reading of the relevant provisions to prima facie see whether any offence can be said to have been committed or not.";