Ratan Parkashan Mandir and ors. vs Lajpat Rai

Pritpal Singh, J.

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have sought the quashing of a criminal complaint filed against them by the respondent under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 (hereinafter called, the Act).

The learned petitioners'' counsel has urged two points before me in support of this petition. Firstly that on the averments made in the impugned complainant no offence is made out. Secondly that the complaint is barred by time.

Adverting to the first contention the allegations made in the complaint (Annexure P.3) are that the complainant is author of books titled `Genetics and Evolution'' and `Plant Ecology''. Although the Copy Right of the books remained with the complainant but the latter granted licence to the petitioners to publish and the books vide an agreement dated May 7, 1980. This licence was revoked by the complainant on July 15 1982. Despite the revocation the petitioners published the books for sale in the year 198384.

The infringement of Copy Right is punishable under Section 63 of the Act in the light of Section 51 of the Act, Copy Right is infringed interalia when any person without a licence granted by an owner of the Copy Right does something which only the owner of the Copy Right. has the exclusive right to do. In the present case. It is alleged in the impugned complaint that the complainant is owner of the Copy Right of the books and he has the exclusive right to publish the same. He granted licence to the petitioners to publish the books vide an agreement dated May 7, 1980 but this licence was subsequently revoked on July 15, 1982. Manifestly due to this revocation the petitioners were not entitled to publish the books after July 15, 1982. However, allegedly the books were again published by them in 198384. Thus, from the allegations contended in the complaint the commission of an offence under Section 51 of the Act by the petitioners is disclosed.

Now coming to the second contention, the offence of infringement of Copy Right is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year under Section 63 of the Act. It is provided in Section 468 Code of Crimnal Procedure, that cognizance of such a case can be taken by a Court within one year of the commission of the offence. In the present case the petitioners are said to have committed the offence of publishing the books in 198384. The impugned complaint (Annexure P.3) was filed on November 16, 1983. The complaint was, therefore, evidently instituted within the prescribed limit provided in Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the light of what is stated above, there is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed.