Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Dattatray Bapu Dighe challenging the framing of charges against him for alleged copyright infringement. The applicant was found in possession of duplicated books published by Relx India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd.) at a shop called Janani Zerox. The first informant, Amiya Saxena, proprietor of Eagle Eye Detectives, was authorized by Relx India to take action against piracy. A raid was conducted on 13 June 2017, leading to seizure of duplicated books worth Rs.10,703/- and a computer hard disk containing soft copies of the books. The police filed a chargesheet for offences under Sections 63, 63B, and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The applicant initially filed Criminal Application No.443/2020, and after charges were framed, the Division Bench granted liberty to challenge the framing of charge, leading to the present revision. The sole legal issue was whether registration of copyright is mandatory before launching a criminal prosecution. The applicant argued that registration with Indian authorities is essential, relying on judgments such as Gulfam Exporters and Dhiraj Dewani. The State contended that registration is not mandatory and that the copyright was registered in the USA. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Copyright Act, noting that Section 14 defines copyright as an exclusive right, Section 51 specifies acts of infringement, and Sections 55 and 63 provide civil and criminal remedies respectively. The Court observed that the Copyright Act does not require registration as a prerequisite for enforcement. It distinguished between registration under the Trade Marks Act, which confers specific rights, and the Copyright Act, which gives rights to the first owner without registration. The Court held that the judgments in Gulfam Exporters and Dhiraj Dewani were per incuriam as they incorrectly equated the two regimes. The Court also noted that the copyright was registered in the USA, but this was not determinative. The revision was dismissed, and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Copyright Infringement - Prerequisite of Registration - Sections 63, 63B, 65, 44, 51, 55, 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - The sole issue was whether registration of copyright under Section 44 is mandatory before initiating criminal prosecution for infringement. The Court held that registration is not a prerequisite for criminal action, as the Copyright Act confers rights on the first owner without requiring prior registration. The judgments in Gulfam Exporters and Dhiraj Dewani, which held otherwise, were considered per incuriam as they incorrectly equated registration under the Trade Marks Act with that under the Copyright Act. (Paras 1, 10-12) B) Criminal Law - Copyright Infringement - Search and Seizure - Procedure - Sections 63, 63B, 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - The applicant challenged the search and seizure procedure as improper. The Court did not specifically rule on this issue as the main question was decided on the registration point. (Para 8(b)) C) Criminal Law - Copyright Infringement - Power of Attorney Holder - Locus Standi - Sections 63, 63B, 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - The first informant was a power of attorney holder authorized by the copyright owner. The Court did not find this to be a bar to prosecution. (Paras 2, 8(a))
Issue of Consideration
Whether registration of a copyright is required prior to launching a prosecution under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. The prosecution against the applicant under Sections 63, 63B, and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is allowed to proceed.
Law Points
- Registration of copyright is not mandatory for criminal prosecution under Copyright Act
- 1957
- Sections 63
- 63B
- 65
- Copyright Act does not require registration as a prerequisite for infringement remedies
- Distinction between registration under Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act
- Per incuriam judgments equating registration requirements under both Acts are incorrect.
