http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NAGOTI VENKATARAMANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R Leave granted Shri Prakash  Reddy, learned  counsel for the respondent has raised an  interesting question  of law  in this  case.  The admitted facts  are that  the  Inspector  of  Police,  Urban Police Station,  Tenali, Guntur  District of  Andhra Pradesh had   in a  raid on December 23, 1986 seized 90 cassettes of various cinematograph  films in  Telugu,   Hindi and English under a  panchnama attested  by PW-2  from the video library belonging to  the   respondent and laid the charge-sheet for an offence  under Section  52-A read  with Section 63 of the Copyright Act,  1957 [for  short, the  "Act] as  amended  in 1984. The  trial Court  after adduction of evidence of PWs-1 to 3  and production  f Exs.  P-1  and  MO-1  convicted  the respondent under  Section 63 of the Act for minimum sentence of six  months and  also imposed  a fine  of Rs. 3,000/-. In default, he  was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further  period of  one month.  On  appeal,  the  Sessions Judge, Guntur  confirmed the  same. In Criminal Revision No. 665/69 and  CRC No.  666/89 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by  judgment   dated  September   17,  1990   acquitted  the respondent of offence. Thus these appeals by special leave. The  facts  as  found  and  not  in  dispute  are  that  the respondent had kept in his shop by name Video City,  various cassettes  numbering   90  in   Telugu,  English  and  Hindu cinematograph films  exhibiting the  same either for hire or sale to  the customers.  The question, therefore, is whether the respondent has committed infringement of a copy right of deemed infringement  thereof. The  Statement of  Objects and Reasons to Amendment Act 65 of 1984 reads as under :           "Piracy has  become  a  global      problem due  to the  rapid advances      in  technology.   It  has   assumed      alarming proportions  all over  the      world and  all the   countries  are      trying to  meet  the  challenge  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

    taking  stringent  Legislative  and      enforcement measures.  The  problem      of piracy  and  the  necessity  for      taking   sufficient   anti   piracy      measures  were   also   voiced   by      Members of  Parliament at  the time      of the consideration of the Bill to      amend the Copyright Act, 1957, last      year.           2. Mainly  there    are  three      types of  piracy, namely, piracy of      the printed  word, piracy  of sound      recordings    and     piracy     of      cinematograph films.  The object of      the pirate  in all such cases is to      make quick  money and avoid payment      of legitimate  taxes and royalties.      In  respect   of   books,   it   is      estimated that four hundred to five      hundred titles  are  pirated  every      year in  India and  on each  of the      pirated titles,  the loses  to  the      Government  in   the  form  of  tax      evasion  amounts  approximately  to      Rs.  11,000/-   Apart  from  books,      recorded music  and video cassettes      of   films    TV    programs    are      reproduced, distributed and sold on      a massive  scale in  many parts  of      the world  without any remuneration      to    the     authors,    artistes,      publishers and producers concerned.      The emergence  of new techniques of      recordings,      fixation       and      reproduction  of   audio  programs,      combined with  the  advent of video      technology  have   greatly  greatly      helped the pirates. It is estimated      that losses  to the  film producers      and  other   owners  of   copyright      amount to several crores of rupees.      The loss to Government in  terms of      tax evasion  also amounts to crores      of rupees.  In addition  because of      the  recent   video  boom   in  the      country,  there  are  reports  that      uncertified video  films are  being      exhibited on a large scale. A large      number of  video parlors  have also      sprung up  all over the country and      they exhibit such films recorded on      video tapes  by charging  admission      fees from their clients. In view of      these circumstances, it is proposed      to amend  the Copyright  Act, 1957,      suitably to  combat affectively the      piracy that  is  prevalent  in  the      country.           3. The  Bill  provides,  among      other  things,  for  the  following      amendments to the Act, namely :-      (i)  to  increase   the  punishment      provided for  the  infringement  of      the copyright, namely, imprisonment      of  three  years,  with  a  minimum

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    punishment of  imprisonment of  six      months, and  fine upto Rs. 2 lakhs,      with a minimum of Rs. 50,000/-      (ii)    to     provide     enhanced      punishments in  the case  of second      and subsequent convictions ;      (iii)   to    provide    for    the      declaration  of   the  offence   of      infringement  of  copyright  as  an      economic offence so that the period      of limitation  provided for  in the      Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973      for offence  will not applicable to      this offence.;      (iv)  to   specifically  make   the      provisions of the Act applicable to      video films and computer programs;      (v) to  require  the  producers  of      records and  video films to display      certain information in the records,      video    films    and    containers      thereof."      Section 2  [m] (ii) defined "infringing  copy" to mean, in relation to cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any  medium by any means. Section 3 defines "publication" to mean  making a  work available  to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public. Section 4 envisages when  work  is  not  deemed  to  be  published  or performed in  public. It provides that except in relation to infringement of  copyright, a work shall not be deemed to be published or performed in public, without the license of the owner of  the copyright.  The permission  of the  owner  for publication is  mandatory when  it sought to be brought home to the  person violating  the publication  or  performed  in public. It  excludes the  application of  infringement of  a copyright from the purview of Section 4 Chapter x deals with registration of  copyright. Section  44 envisages that there shall be  kept at  the Copyright  Office a  register in  the prescribed form  to be  called the Register of Copyrights in which may  be entered  the names  or title of works and  the names and  addresses of  authors, publishers  and owners  of copyright and  such other  particulars as may be prescribed. The entries  under Section  48 in the register of copyrights shall be  prima facie   evidence  of the particulars entered therein, or extracts therefrom certified by the Registrar of Copyrights and  sealed with the seal of the Copyright Office shall be  admissible  in  evidence  in  all  courts  without further proof  or production  of the  original Section 51 in Chapter  XI   deals  with  infringement  of  copyrights.  It provides, among  other things,  that a  copyright in  a work shall be  deemed to be infringed when any other person makes for sale  or hire,  or sells  or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays  or offers  for sale  or hire  any infringing copies of  the work.  Section 52-A deals with particulars to be included in sound recordings and video films. Sub-section thereof [2] provides thus :      "[2]  No  person  shall  publish  a      video film  in respect  of any work      unless  the  following  particulars      are displayed  in the  video  film,      when exhibited,  and on  the  video      cassette   or    other    container      thereof, namely :-      (a) if such work is a cinematograph

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    film required  to be  certified for      exhibition under  the provisions of      the Cinematograph  Act, 1952 [37 of      1952], a  copy of  the certificates      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 license      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".      Section 63 in Chapter XIII provides      for penalty thus :      "63.  Offence  of  infringement  of      copyright  or   other   rights   as      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 53-A,      shall    be     punishable     with      imprisonment for  a term  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."      Further  amendment with regard to sentence of fine came to be made by Amendment Act 38 of 1994 with which we are not presently concerned.      Section 68-A  provides for penalty for contravention of Section 52-A. It reads that any person who publishes a sound recording or a video film in contravention of the provisions of Section 52-A, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years and  shall also be liable to fine.      A  reading  of  these  provisions  does  indicate  that infringement of  a copyright  or deemed  infringement  of  a copyright or publication of a work without the permission of the owner  are offences  under  the  Act.  The  question  is whether identification  of the  owner of  the copyright is a pre-condition for  violation of the provisions of Section 63 or 68-A,  as the case may be ? The finding of the High Court and ably   sought  to be  supported by Shri Prakash Reddy is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

that unless  the owner is  identified and he comes and gives evidence that  he had copyright of the video film  which was sought to  be in  violation of Section 52-A or Section 51 of the Act, there is no offence made out by the prosecution and that,  therefore,   the  conviction   and  sentence  of  the respondent is  not valid  in law. He contends that Section 4 expressly excludes publication of the  work to be published. The identification  of the owner being  an essential element to prove  the offence  of  infringement  of  copyright,  the prosecution  has   failed  to   establish   the   same.   In construction of the penal statute strict construction should be adopted  and in  that perspective  the benefit  of  doubt given by  the High  Court is  well justified  and  does  not warrant interference.      It  is   true  that  in  the  interpretation  of  penal provisions, strict  construction is  required to  be adopted and if  any real  doubt arises,  necessarily the  reasonable benefit of  doubt would  be extended to the accused. In this case, the  question arises : whether such a doubt has arisen ? The  object of amending the Copyright Act by Act amendment 65 of  1984, as  note above,  was to  prevent  piracy  which became a global problem due to rapid advances in technology. The legislature  intended to  prevent piracy  and punish the pirates protecting  copyrights. The  law, therefore, came to be amended  introducing Section 52-A. Thereafter, the piracy of cinematograph  films and of sound recording etc. could be satisfactorily prevented.  Moreover the object of the pirate is to  make quick  money and   avoid  payment of  legitimate taxes  and   royalties.  The  uncertified  films  are  being exhibited in  a large  scale. Mushrooming  growth  of  video parlours has  sprung up all over the country exhibiting such films recorded on video tapes by charging admission fee from the visitors.  Therefore, apart from increasing  the penalty of punishment  under law it also provides the declaration on the offence  of infringement  and  video  films  to  display certain  information   on  the   recorded  video  films  and containers  thereof.  Section  52-A  thus  has  incorporated specifications of the prints in sub-section [2] thereof. The construction of  Sections 52-A,  51, 63  and 68-A  should be approached  from   his  perspective.  It  would  be  further profitable  to   read  the   relevant  provisions   of   the Cinematograph Act,  1952 in  this behalf.    Section  2  [c] defines "cinematograph"  to include  any apparatus  for  the representation of  moving pictures  or series  of  pictures. Section 2  [d] (d)   defines "films" to mean a cinematograph film. The  question, therefore  is :  whether video  film is cinematograph ?  It is  settled view  that video  tapes come within  the   expression  "cinematograph"  in  view  of  the extended  definition   in  Section   2  [c]  which  includes apparatus for  the  representation  of  moving  pictures  or series of  pictures as  copy of  the video should be created in respect  of a  cinematograph under  the Cinematograph Act which  gives   protection   to   the   purchasers   of   the cinematograph if  they are registered under Chapter X of the Act. Section 44 gives the right of registration and once the entries have  been made  by  operation  of  Section  48  the entries in  the register  of copyrights shall be prima facie evidence of  the  copyright  and  the  entries  therein  are conclusive without  proof of  the copyright  and the entries therein are  conclusive  without  proof  of  the    original copyright which  must be  taken  to  have  been  created  in respect of the video tape.      In Balwinder  Singh v.  Delhi Administration  [AIR 1984 Delhi 379]  a Division  Bench of  Delhi High  Court had also held that  both  video  and  television  are  cinematograph.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

Licenses for  giving their  public exhibition  is  necessary under  the  Cinematograph  Act  in  spite  of  their  having commercial licenses for them under the Telegraphs Act.      It is  true that  there is  no  specific  charge  under Section 52-A.  The charge  was under  Section 51  read  with Section 63  of the  Act. In view of the above finding and in view  of  the    findings  of  the  courts  below  that  the respondent was  exhibiting the  cinematograph films  in  his Video City  for hire  or for  sale of  the cassettes  to the public which  do not contain the particulars envisaged under Section 52-A  of  the  Act,  the  infringement  falls  under Section 51[2] (ii) or Section 52-A of the Act. The former is punishable under  Section 63  and   the latter is punishable under Section 68-A of the Act. In view of the above findings of the  courts below the offence under which the case falls. It would,  therefore, be  unnecessary for the prosecution to track on  and trace  out the  owner of the copyright to come and   adduce evidence  of  infringement  of  copyright.  The absence  thereof  does  not  constitute  lack  of  essential element of  infringement of copyright. If the particulars on video films  etc. as mandated under Section 52-A do not find place, it would be infringement  of copyright.      In our  view, on  the facts  in this  case, the offence would fall  under Section  68-A of the Act. Accordingly, the conviction of the respondent is altered to one under Section 68-A. There would be no prejudice to the respondent. In view of the  facts and circumstances, we are of the  opinion that instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment, sentence  of fine of a sum of Rs 10,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the  conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court as  confirmed by  the appellate  Court are modified to one of  conviction under  Section 68-A.  The  respondent  is sentenced to  pay a  fine of  Rs. 10,000/-.  In default,  he should undergo  rigorous imprisonment  for a period of three months. Even  if he  does not pay the fine and undergoes the sentence, the  State is  at liberty to recover the fine from the respondent. The appeals are accordingly allowed.