Judgment : The petitioners, who are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.141 of 2005 on the file of the first respondent herein, have filed the above Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash all further proceedings therein. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above Criminal Original Petition are set out below: The de facto complainant, the second respondent herein, preferred a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniambadi, stating that he resides at Mottur Village and having his business at Kalasipalayam, Bangalore, The complainant claims that he had invented ‘mild steel tubes’ to be used in bore wells having specific dimensions between 168.4 mm to 193.6 mm. He had applied for registration with the Registrar of Patents as well to the Copyright Registry. In the year 2003, the Copyright Authorities have given two Certificates of Registration, i.e., for the engineering drawings of the said Kesavalu Naidu for 175 mm and 180 mm O.D.M.S. Pipe vide its Registration Nos. 65629 of 2003 and 65630 of 2003 respectively. The further averment is that the pipes manufactured by him had the monogram “GKT” and the monogram has been submitted to the Trademark Registry for ‘registration. While the matter stood there, he heard the news that some other companies are manufacturing and Marketing MS tubes without the logo “GKT” with the inferior quality of steel and by appearance, the same were similar to the pipes manufactured by him. Later, he came to know a company, viz., Calcutta Tubes India Ltd., at Bangalore was manufacturing and marketing the pipes. Because of the marketing of the pipes manufactured by Calcutta Tube India Ltd., he suffered ‘loss’ as rig owners and the operators were using the mild steel tubes manufactured and marketed by Calcutta Tube India Ltd., 3. In the complaint it is alleged that Calcutta Tube India Limited, is cheating many dealers in pipes, which resulted in lesser sales of product of the complainant and which resulted loss to the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant is having exclusive proprietary rights over the said invention and he is the Copy Right Owner of the Engineering Drawings filed along with the said Patent applications for the above said invention, because of its specific “Artistic work” under the Copy Right Act, 1957 (14 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which includes drawings namely industrial and engineering drawings. It is further alleged that the accused have violated the provisions of Sections 51 and 62 of the Act, which is punishable under Section 63 of the Act. It is also alleged that Calcutta Tube India Limited and the accused have cheated the innocent Rig owners and committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 63 of the Act. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the first respondent and the first respondent has registered a case in Crime No.141 of 2005 for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 63 of the Act. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 5. Mr. A. Ramesh learned senior, counsel for Ram and Ram appearing for the petitioners has made the following submissions: (a) The de facto complainant claims that he had a Copyright over said to have been invented by him. No one can own a copyright for the ‘design’ or ‘Shape’ of any object or article Copyright would be applicable only to literary, dramatic, musical or ‘artistic’ work Section 2(m)(i) of the Act defines; infringing, copy’ and the same reads a follows: “2(m)(i) “infringing copy” means- In relation to literary, dramatic, musical or artistic, work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film.” According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners from a bare perusal of the above provisions it is clear that the de facto complainant cannot have any copyright over the dimension or design of the Mild Steel tubes and the copy of the extracts given by the Copy right Office would show ‘that the copyright was given only for the ‘engineering drawings of the tubes and the same was described and classified as “Artistic work”. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for ‘the petitioners, by no stretch of imagination, infringement of copyright will not arise and therefore no case could be registered for the alleged offence under Section 63 of the Act. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for ‘the petitioners, by no stretch of imagination, infringement of copyright will not arise and therefore no case could be registered for the alleged offence under Section 63 of the Act. .(b) that the de facto complainant had alleged in the First Information Report that Calcutta Tube India Limited, had infringed the copyright owned by him, but, according to the learned senior counsel, the company has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint and there are no allegations in the complaint as against the petitioners herein to show that they are incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the company and therefore they could not have been arrayed as the accused in the complaint. .(c) that the entire reading of the first information report does not reveal the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC. According to the learned senior counsel, ‘deception’ is the sine qua non for attracting the offence of cheating, but in the complaint, there is no allegation that the petitioners had deceived the defacto complainant by representing or inducing to deliver any property. Similarly, the learned senior counsel submitted that dishonesty has to be alleged and in the First Information Report, there is no averment that the petitioners had individually or collectively made wrongful gain for themselves or to anybody. Therefore, the learned senior counsel submitted that the First Information Report does not disclose the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC. .(d) Sections 468 and 471 deal with forgery for the purpose cheating and using as genuine a forged document. He further submitted that the above Sections would be applicable only when a document is forged and used for cheating, but, in the entire complaint there is not even a whisper as to which document had been forged and who had forged the same without giving any basic facts constituting the offences or particulars to substantiate the same, the first respondent, ought not to have registered the case for the offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. (e) Learned senior, counsel for the petitioners further contended that there can be no question of vicarious liability being fastened on the Directors of the company in respect of the offences arising under IPC. (e) Learned senior, counsel for the petitioners further contended that there can be no question of vicarious liability being fastened on the Directors of the company in respect of the offences arising under IPC. Therefore, the petitioners, who are alleged to be the Directors of the Company, cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. In support of his said contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners based reliance on a decision of the Apex Court Devendra v. State of U.P. (2009) 7 Scale 613. In the said decision, the following passage from the decision, V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat and Another (2009) 3 SCC 78 : (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl) 711 has been extracted. “An offence of cheating cannot be said to have been made out unless the following ingredients are satisfied. .(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other or omission; .(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or (iii) to consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. 12. For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at that time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out.” And thereafter, the following observation has been made: “It is, therefore, evident that a misrepresentation from the very beginning is’ a sine qua non for constitution of an offence of cheating, although in some cases, an intention to cheat may develop at a later stage of formation of the contract.” 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court S.K. Alagh v. State of U.P (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1360. In the said decision, in paragraph 16, the Apex Court; has laid down as under at p. 1364: “16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court S.K. Alagh v. State of U.P (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1360. In the said decision, in paragraph 16, the Apex Court; has laid down as under at p. 1364: “16. Indian Penal Code, save and except some provisions specifically providing therefore, does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a party who is not charged directly for commission of an offence.” 7. Learned senior counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1774 (SC-NOC). In the said decision the Apex Court in paragraph 13 has laid down as under: “13. …. Indian Penal Code does not contain an provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.” 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that from a perusal of the extracts, dated 12. 2003, pertaining to Registration No.A-65629 of 2003, from the Registrar of Copyrights itself, it is seen that the following remarks have been made, namely, that a copy of the works is annexed work not to be used in relation to any goods’ similarly, in the another extract, dated 12. 2003 pertaining to Registration No.A-65623 of 2003 from the Registrar of Copyrights, a similar remark: is found namely, ‘a copy of the work is annexed work not to be used in relation to any goods!. 2003 pertaining to Registration No.A-65623 of 2003 from the Registrar of Copyrights, a similar remark: is found namely, ‘a copy of the work is annexed work not to be used in relation to any goods!. Basing reliance on these, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the work for which the copyright has been granted is only in respect of the drawings and not in respect of the goods manufactured by using the drawings, namely, the steel pipes. He further submitted – that the, copy right granted to the petitioners was expunged by the Copyright Board on 12. 2008, but however the second respondent had preferred an appeal against that order CMA S.A. No.2859 of 2008 before this Court and in M.P.No. 1 of 2008 interim stay was granted for a limited period and thereafter the stay has not been extended and therefore contended that as on date, the second respondent cannot claim to be the owner of the copyright. 9. On the aforesaid submissions made by the learned senior-counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel for Mr. T.R. Ravi, learned counsel, for the second respondent, was heard. 10. Learned senior counsel for the second respondent submitted that a perusal of the complaint shows that allegations have been made against the company, Calcutta Tube India Limited, and even in the First Information Report, the company has been arrayed as an accused. He further submitted that on the basis of the material on available on record, it could be arrayed as on accused by invoking Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. at the time of trial and therefore, the contention of the petitioners that it is not possible to prosecute the Directors, alone, cannot be countenanced. Even otherwise, the learned senior counsel submitted that it is not necessary to array the company as an accused for prosecuting the Managing Director’s or Directors of the company; what is essential is that it should be shown that the offence alleged was committed by the company. He further contended that forgery need not be confined to a document only and since the accused have duplicated the pipes for which the second respondent/de/facto complainant had copyright; they are liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and similarly, the petitioners have infringed the copy right of the second respondent. 11. He further contended that forgery need not be confined to a document only and since the accused have duplicated the pipes for which the second respondent/de/facto complainant had copyright; they are liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and similarly, the petitioners have infringed the copy right of the second respondent. 11. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 12. At the outset it has to be seen as to whether the second respondents can claim copyright in the steel pipes and whether the copyright has been granted in respect of the drawings or in respect of the steel pipes manufactured by using the drawings. Section 2 (c) of the Act, defines ‘Artistic work’ as follows: “2. Interpretation. – .(c) “artistic work” means,- .(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality; Section 13(1) of the Act reads as follows: “13. Works in which copyright subsists.- .(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works that is to say,- .(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; .(b) cinematograph films; and .(c) sound recording. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that ‘Artistic work’ includes a ‘drawing’, but does not include a material object; like a ‘steel pipe’ and as per “Section-13(1) of the Act, copyright subsists only in the artistic work. Further, in the remarks column the certificates show that, it cannot be used in relation to any goods. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the copy right granted to the second respondent relates only to the drawings submitted by the second respondent and it does not relate to the steel pipes manufactured by using the drawings. Therefore, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act is made out. 13. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in the entire complaint there is absolutely no averment as to which document was forged. Therefore, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act is made out. 13. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in the entire complaint there is absolutely no averment as to which document was forged. Similarly, it has also not been alleged in the complaint that the drawings of the second respondent was either stolen or copied by the petitioners and by using the same they manufactured the steel pipes. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are made out. 14. As far as the offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and as laid down in the Apex Court in the decisions Devendra v. State of U.P (supra) and V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat and Another (supra), there are absolutely no allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC. In the entire complaint it is not alleged that any deception was played upon the second respondent and he was induced to deliver any property to the accused. In the absence of the allegations disclosing the ingredients of the offence under Section 420. IPC, no case could have been registered for the offence under Sections 420 IPC. 15. As right contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, no vicarious liability can be fastened on the Directors of a company in the absence of a provision to the effect in the Statute, namely, IPC itself. The ratio laid down in S.K. Alagh v. State of U.P. (supra) and Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (supra) squarely applied to the facts of this case and therefore, the aforesaid contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners merit acceptance. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, all further proceedings in Crime No.141 of 2005 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed and the Criminal original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Crl. M.Ps are closed.