Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 866 (JHR)

Uma Shankar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2012-06-27

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The opposite party No.2 has not appeared in this case in spite valid service of notice upon him. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment dated August, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - III, Chaibasa, in Cr. Appeal No.5 of 2001 and Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2001, whereby, the Court below has upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Section 68-A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and they were sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in default thereof, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. These appeals were filed against the Judgment dated 20.12.2000 passed in G.R. No.7 of 1996/T.R. No.61 of 2000 and the Judgment dated 27.1.2001 passed in G.R. No.7 of 1996/T.R. No.207 of 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chakradharpur at Chaibasa. It may be stated that the Appellate Court below had found the petitioners not guilty for the offence under Section 7(1) (a) of Cinematograph Act, for which also petitioners were convicted by the Trial Court. 3. It appears from perusal of the impugned Judgment that the petitioners are the owner and employees of a video hall at Chakradharpur and they have been made accused in Chakradharpur P.S. Case No.5 of 1996, for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC, Section 7(1)(2) of Bihar Cinema Act, 1954 and Section 52-A of Copyright Act, 1957, which was instituted on the basis of the written report given by the informant R.C. Kumar, Proprietor of M/S Prabhat Talkies of Chakradharpur, alleging that on 6.1.1996, the petitioners were engaged in exhibiting the feature film ‘Karan Arjun’ in their video hall at Chakradharpur. The said film was being shown in four shows, after making wide publicity and after realizing the money from the general public and the video hall had the capacity of 175 persons. It was further alleged in the written report that there was an agreement with the distributor for exhibition of the film ‘Karan Arjun’ with M/s Prabhat Talkies. In the meantime the owner of the said video hall had started exhibiting the said film. It was further alleged in the written report that there was an agreement with the distributor for exhibition of the film ‘Karan Arjun’ with M/s Prabhat Talkies. In the meantime the owner of the said video hall had started exhibiting the said film. It was alleged that the copyright of the said film was reserved with one M/s C.Y. International, Patna, and without their consent, the said film could not be exhibited in the video hall and if the same was exhibited, it would violate the Copyright Act. The distributor had not released the video Cassette of the said film for ‘public exhibition’. The informant claiming to have the Power of Attorney from M/s C.Y. International, Patna, filed the written statement to the aforementioned effect, on the basis of which Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 5 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. No. 7 of 1996 was instituted. 4. The petitioners were put to trial and by the Trial Court, they were convicted for the offence under Section 7(1) (a) of the Cinematograph Act and under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and were accordingly, sentenced for the same by the Judgment dated 20.12.2000 passed in G.R. No.7 of 1996/T.R. No.61 of 2000 and Judgment dated 27.1.2001 passed in G.R. No.7 of 1996/T.R. No.207 of 2001, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chakradharpur at Chaibasa. Aggrieved by the said Judgments of conviction and Orders of sentence, the petitioners preferred the appeals before the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2001, which were disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC – III, Chaibasa, by the common Judgment dated 6.8.2003, whereby, the petitioners were acquitted from conviction under Section 7(1)(a) of the Cinematograph Act, but they were convicted by the learned Appellate Court for the offence under Section 68-A of the Copyright Act and were sentenced to fine as aforementioned. 5. It is apparent from the Judgment passed by the Appellate Court below that the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 68-A of the Copyright Act for violation of the provisions of Section 52-A of the Said Act. 6. 5. It is apparent from the Judgment passed by the Appellate Court below that the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 68-A of the Copyright Act for violation of the provisions of Section 52-A of the Said Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below are absolutely illegal, in as much as, no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioners under Section 68-A of the Copyright Act for any violation of Section 52-A of the Act. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned Judgments cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgments passed by the Court below and the same cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. 8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that in the Judgment passed by the Appellate Court below, it has come that the petitioners were having valid license for running the video hall and they were also paying the tax. The only offence for which the petitioners have been found guilty is for the offence under Section 52-A of the Copyright Act for which they have been sentenced under Section 68-A of the said Act. Section 52-A (2) of the Copyright Act reads as follows:-“52-A Particulars to be included in sound recording and video films (1) *** *** *** (2) No person shall publish a video film in respect of any work unless the following particulars are displayed in the4 video film, when exhibited, and on the video cassette or other container thereof, namely:- (a) if such work is a cinematograph film required to be certified for exhibition under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952), a copy of the certificate granted by the Board of Film Certification under section 5 – A of that Act in respect of such work; (b) the name and address of the person who has made the video film and a declaration by him that he has obtained the necessary licence or consent from the owner of the copyright in such work for making such video film; and (c) the name and address of the owner of the copyright in such work. Thus, from a bare perusal of Section 52-A of the Copyright Act, it is apparent that a person can be found guilty for the offence under this Section, only if he has been found to publish a video film without displaying the following particulars in the video film, namely,:- (a) if such work is a cinematograph film required to be certified for exhibition under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, a copy of the certificate granted by the Board of Film Certification, (b) the name and address of the person who has made the video film and a declaration that he has obtained the necessary licence or consent from the owner of the copyright in such work for making such video film; and (c) the name and address of the owner of the copyright in such work. 9. From the entire material against the petitioners as discussed in the impugned Judgment, it is apparent that the only allegation against the petitioners was that they were exhibiting the film ‘Karan Arjun’ in the Video Hall and the Cassette was not for the ‘public viewing’, rather the Cassette was for ‘home viewing’. 10. It further appears from the impugned Judgment that six witnesses were examined by the Court below, out of which PW – 1 Ram Chandra Kumar, who was the informant, has only stated that the petitioners were exhibiting the feature film ‘Karan Arjun’ in their video hall. From the discussion of the evidence of PW – 1 in the impugned Judgment, it is apparent that he had not stated anything in his evidence with respect to displaying the video film without displaying the aforementioned three particulars as required under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 52-A (2) of the Act. PW – 2 and PW – 6 are the officer-in-charge of the police station and the I.O. of the case respectively, who also have not stated anything about the aforesaid three particulars. PW – 3 had only produced the Cassette in the Court, which was marked as material exhibit. PW – 4 and PW -5 were the seizure list witnesses, who had turned hostile. Thus, from the evidence discussed in the impugned judgment, it is apparent that nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioners were exhibiting the video film without displaying the three particulars as mentioned above. 11. PW – 4 and PW -5 were the seizure list witnesses, who had turned hostile. Thus, from the evidence discussed in the impugned judgment, it is apparent that nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioners were exhibiting the video film without displaying the three particulars as mentioned above. 11. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that no offence can be said to be committed by the petitioners under Section 52-A of the Copyright Act and the conviction of the petitioners under Section 68-A of the said Act for violation of Section 52-A of the said Act cannot be maintained. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Accordingly the Judgments of conviction and Orders of sentence dated 20.12.2000 passed in G.R. No.7 of 1996/T.R. No.61 of 2000 and dated 27.1.2001 in G.R. No.7 of 1996/T.R. No.207 of 2001, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chakradharpur at Chaibasa, and also the Judgment dated 6th August, 2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chaibasa, in Cr. Appeal No.5 of 2001 and Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2001, are hereby, set-aside. The petitioners, accordingly, stand acquitted of the charge and this revision application is thus, allowed.