ORDER : Accused Nos.2 to 5, 7 and 8 in C.C.No.625/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the said case. The allegation against the petitioners is that the first petitioner Company in which petitioners 2 to 6, (Accused Nos. 3 to 5, 7 & 8) function as Managing Director and Whole Time Directors respectively, knowingly infringed the copyright of the de facto complainant/first respondent by enabling the publication of a book of the first accused by name ‘Spain Kalaporinte Nadu’. Thus, the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. 2. The case arose upon a private complaint filed by the first respondent before the learned Magistrate alleging that the first accused published the above book making use of the second accused (first petitioner) Printing and Publishing Company by copying word to word about 58 pages of the travelogues published by the first respondent in October, 2011 in his blog ‘chilayaathrakal.blogspot.com’. It is alleged that the first accused resorted to unscrupulous plagiarism by not caring to even edit his work so as to avoid references about the wife and daughter of the first respondent which were contained in the travelogues published in his blog. 3. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the first respondent, found that there was sufficient ground to proceed against accused Nos.1 to 8, and accordingly took the complaint to files as C.C.No.625/2018, and issued summons to the accused to answer the charge of Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that the averments in the complaint will not constitute the aforesaid offence as against them. For the above reason, the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. As already stated above, the first petitioner herein is a Printing and Publishing Company run by the second petitioner as Managing Director and petitioners 3 to 6 as Whole Time Directors. They are arraigned in the complaint as the accused Nos.2 to 5, 7 and 8 respectively. 5. As already stated above, the first petitioner herein is a Printing and Publishing Company run by the second petitioner as Managing Director and petitioners 3 to 6 as Whole Time Directors. They are arraigned in the complaint as the accused Nos.2 to 5, 7 and 8 respectively. The allegation against them is that they facilitated the publication of a book by name ‘Spain Kalaporinte Nadu’ which the first accused managed to prepare by resorting to plagiarism by copying the contents of the travelogues published by the first respondent in his blog. It is stated by the first respondent in the complaint that when he came to know about the above misdeed of the first accused in December, 2017, he posted the matter on his facebook page by way of a live video. On being thus informed of such plagiarism by the first accused, the second accused (first petitioner herein) is said to have sent a letter dated 29.12.2017 to the first respondent stating that they have withdrawn all copies of the infringing works from the public domain. However, the first respondent was aggrieved by the fact that the copies of the aforesaid book of the first accused were still available in the market. It is under the above circumstances that the first respondent resorted to legal proceedings against the first accused as well as the petitioners herein. In addition to the criminal prosecution launched by the instant proceedings, the first respondent is also seen to have instituted O.S.No.3/2019 before the District Court, Ernakulam against the first accused and the second petitioner company alleging copyright violation. 6. As far as the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the crime is that the offender should have knowingly infringed or abetted the infringement of the copyright in a work. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the aforesaid Section is extracted hereunder: “63. Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the aforesaid Section is extracted hereunder: “63. Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act. Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of – (a) the copyright in a work, or (b) any other right conferred by this Act [except the right conferred by section 53A], [shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that [where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business] the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.] Explanation.-- Construction of a building or other structure which, infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be an offence under this section.” 7. It is clear from the above provision of law that the culpable mental state of the offender at the time when he does the act constituting the infringement of copyright, is of paramount importance. That is the reason why the legislature in its wisdom incorporated the adverb ‘knowingly’ in the said provision. Therefore, if a Printing and Publishing Company and the persons who are in-charge of and responsible for its conduct of business are to be roped in a prosecution for the offence under section 63 of the Copyright Act, it has to be shown that the said persons were aware of the fact that the work which they are publishing was the product of copyright violation. As far as the present case is concerned, the averments in the complaint filed by the first respondent before the learned Magistrate are not capable of showing that the petitioners were aware of the fact that the book by name ‘Spain Kalaporinte Nadu’ which the first accused placed before them for publication, was the product of copyright violation of the travelogues published by the first respondent in his blog. It is true that in paragraph No.12 of the complaint (Annexure-H), the first respondent stated that accused Nos.2 to 8 deliberately published the literary work of the complainant without his knowledge or permission and thus deliberately violated the copyright of the complainant. However, it is pertinent to note that, in paragraph No.9 of the complaint, the first respondent stated that the second accused (first petitioner herein) on being informed in December, 2017 about the plagiarism by the first accused, had sent a letter dated 29.12.2017 to the first respondent that they have withdrawn all copies of the infringing works from the public domain. It is further made clear in the aforesaid paragraph of the complaint that in spite of the above assurance made by the first petitioner, the copies of the infringing work were still available in the market. It is under the above circumstances that the first respondent resorted to civil and criminal action against the above copyright violation. The admitted conduct on the part of the first petitioner informing the first respondent about the withdrawal of the copies of the infringing works from public domain, immediately after getting information about the foul play committed by the first accused, has to be taken as a circumstance which would show that there was no culpable mental state qualifying the term ‘knowingly’ in Section 63 of the Copyright Act, as far as the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, the mere allegation in paragraph No.12 of the complaint about the deliberate publication of the book by the petitioners in violation of the copyright of the first respondent, can only be considered as a perfunctory statement. It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely nothing stated in the complaint filed by the first respondent about any circumstances which would point that the petitioners were aware of the fact that the book which the first accused sought to publish through their publishing company, was the product of copyright violation. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners could be fastened with the criminal liability envisaged under Section 63 of the Copyright Act for knowingly infringing the copyright of the first respondent. Therefore, the prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings against them deserves favourable consideration. In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners (accused Nos. Therefore, the prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings against them deserves favourable consideration. In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners (accused Nos. 2 to 5, 7 and 8) in C.C.No.625/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam are hereby quashed. It is made clear that the observations in this order are of no relevance in the adjudication of the civil suit instituted by the first respondent in connection with the copyright violation alleged in this case.