Karnataka High Court
Smart Automobiles vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2021
Author: K.S.Mudagal
Crl.P.No.3852/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3852/2017
BETWEEN:
SMART AUTOMOBILES
NO.23, K.H.B. COLONY
BEHIND PRAKASH THEATRE
YELANANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR.VINOD
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SIJI MALAYIL , ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BANGALORE - 560 009
2. ANAND KABBURI
POLICE INSPECTOR
CRIME BRANCH (F & M) SQUAD
BANGALORE - 560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B G, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
Crl.P.No.3852/2017
2
PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.188/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 63, 65 and 68A OF THE
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 NOW PENDING ON THE FILES OF IX
ACMM, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
"Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.10939/2017
against the petitioner on the file of IX Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru amount to abuse of
the process of the Court ?" is the question involved in
the case.
2. The first respondent-police registered Crime
No.188/2016 against the petitioner and first accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 63, 65 and
68A of the Copyright Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) on
the basis of the complaint filed by the second
respondent.
3. It was alleged that the accused were selling
spurious vehicle spare parts under the brand name
'Hyundai'. It was further alleged that on the basis of
Crl.P.No.3852/2017
the information furnished by the representative of the
Speed Search And Security Networks Pvt. Ltd., the
second respondent conducted search at the shop of the
accused on 13.07.2016 between 3.00 p.m. and 9.00
p.m. It was found that the accused were selling spurious
vehicle spare parts under the brand name 'Hyundai'.
Second respondent allegedly seized the said spare parts
and produced them along with the accused before the
Station House Officer of the first respondent Police
along with his complaint.
4. On that basis FIR in Crime No.188/2016 was
registered. It is submitted that on investigation, the
first respondent-police have charge-sheeted the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
63, 65 and 68A of the Act. On the basis of such charge
sheet the trial Court has taken cognizance for the said
offences and summoned the petitioner to take up trial
for the said offence.
5. The petitioner seeks quashing of the
proceedings on the ground that Sections 63, 65 and 68A
Crl.P.No.3852/2017
of the Act are not at all applicable to the alleged offence
or do not constitute the said offence.
6. In support of such contention, learned
counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
this Court in Best Auto Traders vs. State of
Karnataka and another1.
7. The question is whether the allegations
made against the petitioner constitute the offences
under Sections 63, 65 and 68A of the Act.
8. Section 63 makes it clear that infringement
of copyright or other rights is punishable with
imprisonment up to three years and fine. Section 65
states that possession of plates for the purpose of
making infringing copies is punishable with
imprisonment up to 2 years and fine.
9. Section 68A states any person publishing
sound recording or a video film in contravention of
Section 52A shall be punishable with imprisonment up
Crl.P.No.6570/2016 D.D. 07.12.2016
Crl.P.No.3852/2017
to 3 years and fine. Therefore, to invoke the above
sections essentially there should be infringement of
copyright.
10. Section 2m defines "infringing copy" as
follows:
"2(m) "infringing copy" means,--
(i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical
or artistic work, a reproduction thereof
otherwise than in the form of a
cinematographic film;
(ii) in relation to a cinematographic film, a
copy of the film made on any medium by any
means;
(iii) in relation to a sound recording, any
other recording embodying the same sound
recording, made by any means;
(iv) in relation to a programme or
performance in which such a broadcast
reproduction right or a performer's right
subsists under the provisions of this Act, the
sound recording or a cinematographic film of
such programme or performance,
if such reproduction, copy or sound recording
is made or imported in contravention of the
provisions of this Act;"
Crl.P.No.3852/2017
11. The reading of the above provision makes it
clear that 'infringement copy' applies to literary,
dramatic musical, artistic work and reproduction thereof
otherwise than in the form of cinematographic film in
relation to sound recording programme or performance
in which such a broadcast reproduction right subsists
etc.
12. The act alleged against the petitioner is not
covered under the term "infringement" or the term
"plate" defined in Section 2(m) of the Act.
13. Interpreting the said provision, this Court in
Best Auto Traders' case referred to supra held that
the allegation of selling spurious vehicle spare parts
under a different brand name does not constitute the
offence under Sections 63, 65 and 68A of the Act.
Under the circumstances, even if the proceedings
against the petitioner are continued, there is no chance
of conviction. Such proceedings amount to abuse of the
process of the Court. Therefore the petition is allowed.
Crl.P.No.3852/2017
The First Information report registered in Crime
188/2016 of Yelahanka Police Station and the
proceedings in C.C.No.10929/2017 on the file of IX
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru city
against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
akc
