Allowed

Anil Kumar v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023CRLP/4020/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for copyright infringement regarding classified advertisements. The court held that arranging such ads lacks minimal creativity, ownership lies with the customer, and the essential accused company must be joined under the Copyright Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petitions CRLP No. 4020 and 4048 of 2018 allowed; criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused quashed.

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[32161

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 4020 AND 4048 OF 2018

¶8

CRLP.No. 4020 ot 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

Anil Kumar, S/o. Late Sri Krishnan Unni, Age: 59 years, Printer and^publisher, The Times of lndia, Times House, 8-2-351, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-

¶11

Kingshuk Nag, S/o. Late Sri S K Nag, Age: 59^years, Resident Editor, The Times of lndia, Times House, 8-2-351 , Road No.3, Banjara Hills,^Hyderabad.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its^{publicprosecutor,} high court of ludicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of^A.P.

¶15

Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd.,, Having its registered office at 36, sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad, Telangaria-s00003, rep. by^{its authorised} signatory

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the^proceedings in C.C.No. 399 of 2016 on the^{file of the Xll} Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further^proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in C.C. No. 399 of 2016 on the file of the Xll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad^pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶20

t.A. NO: 20 F 2018

¶21

petition under Section, 4:: ot ,G I S) praying that in the circumstances stated in rhe [4emorandum of Grounds or criminrr Eeiition, tne High court mav be pleased ro exrend rhe inlenm srav s;rJ b;'iii. trJnor|."ntu court in r.A.No 1 0f 2018 dared 16-04-20ra in crip No .- i6ii''"i"zol8 stavins a, further proceedings in C.C.No. 399 of 2016 "^-if,""f,[ "o, in. Xf, Additional Chief or the pet,ionel lff,l:Tiity:? ilf:?"yJ'""j'3"^{J i*r'li} "s^{tn" =,#"1,"n""}

¶22

CRLP No . 4048 of 2018

¶23

Between:

¶24

Ms. Christina Francis. W/o lij:f 3'j^{il"ll"'?, JXi",iJtS:,,J lfli, oft;,:,} nl;i",*;;^ufl if

¶25

AND

¶26

...PETITIONER/A2

¶27

The State of Telangana, Reo_ Jud,carure,+rG"iJo"i,'i#,il,S1 j#?1"i"#ElHl",;#nf; ,".,n"t

¶28

..RESPONDENT

¶29

Deccan Chronicte H"t!110.,1tg ,, Having its Registered office at 36, Saroiini ffxlflfft secundeiaba-o rerinsana -ibtbo'i;i:p by its aurhorised '

¶30

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶31

"",*^{?"'ll!'r:Hj;i","j":. f?- ot ,c'? 9 pravinsthar in rhe circumstances} Additionat Chief Metropoiitan Magis-trate,-iro"rlOli. ",^. oe p,easei L q;; ffi;;#J":,,11ff 3:,.^ii::lXIi, !3Ia ff,1"d,,_ " lltri

¶32

l.A. NO: 10IF 2018

¶33

Petition under section 482 of cr. p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in cc No 3g9 0f 2016 0n the fire of the XIr Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition.

¶34

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D. SRINIVAS PRASAD, Advocate for the Petitioners (in both petitions) and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 (in both petitions) and of Sri A. CHANDRA SHAKER, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 (in both petitions ).

¶35

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶36

,THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶37

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4O2O and 4048 of 2O18

¶38

COMMON ORDER:

¶39

The Crrminat Petriion No.4020 of 2018 is fited by accused Nos.l and 2 and CriminaI Petition No.4048 of 2018 is fited by accused l,lo.2 seeking quashment of the proceedings in CC No.399 of 2016 on the fite of the Xll Additionat Chief Metropotitan Magistrate at Nampatty, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby, the cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and tssued process. Assaiting the same, the I)resent petiLron is fited.

¶40

As the CC number in both the criminat petitions is one and the same and tlre petiticners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in CC No.399 of 2016, both the crirninal petiLions are heard together arrd disposed of by way of this common order.

¶41

The'sum and substance r_rf the case of the prosecution ts that the Times of lndia, Hyderabad is pubtished by M/s.Bennett Coleman and Company Limited and petitioner-accused No.1 is designated as Publisher in terms of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1g67, the Petitioner-accused No.2 is Editor of r-lyderabad rimes ancl the petitioner-accused tlo.3 is Chief Editor of Times of lndia, which is also vrorking under thc. same company. The comptainant is the Deccan Chronicte Hotdings Limited.

¶42

¶43

¶44

The main^{grievanceof the comptainantis that the ctassified} advertisements of^{sate of irnmovabteproperty pubtishedin their} newspaper were^{stoten andpubtlshed in the rrewspaper of Hyderabad} Times and thereby^{committedvarious offences'The said comptaint} wastodgedunderSection200ofCr.P.Canditwasreferredunder Section^{156(3) of Cr.P.C.The potice after investigation found that} the present^{accusedcommitted offence under Section 63 of} Copyright Act^{and consequently had taken cognizanceandissued} process. M/s.Bennett^{Cotemanand CompanyLimiteddetetedas} accused and^{other accused were chargesheeted'}

¶45

The contention^{of learnedcounsetfor the petitioners-accused} Nos.1 to^{3 is that the pubticationof ctassifieds is not resuttof any} minimat creativity^{and there are no copy rights. Thesecond ground} is that even^{copy rights exists in the ctassifieds'which are with the} customer,^{who is the owner of the ctassifieds' The accused atso} raised that^{the petitioners cannotbe prosecutedin the absence of} the accused^{Company,which pubtishes the newspapersin terms of} Section 69^{of Copyright Act' Therefore' learned counsel for the} petitioners- accused^{Nos.1 to J seeksquahsment of the offence'}

¶46

Learned counsel^{for the respondent- comptainant submitted} that the ctassifieds^are prepared on the^{basis of customary} 'information and arrangin! the information^{in order invotvesminimat}

¶47

creativity and they are the owners of [he creativity of ctassifieds and the customer cannot be said to be the owner of the copy rights. lt is further contended that in fact they fited a comptaint against the Company; however, the lnvestigating Officer has not charged the Company as an accused. It^js fault on the part of the investigation and the petitioner cannot be found fautt"

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the petr tioners-acc used Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent-comptainant and perused the materiaI avaitabte on record

¶49

To answer the contentions, rt is apt to refer Section 2(y) of the

¶50

¶51

Section 2: lnterpretation ln this Act, untess the context otherwise requires,

¶52

Section 2(y): "work" means any of the following works, namely:(i) a titerary, dramatic, musical or artistic work; (ii) a cinematograph fitm;

¶53

8(a). lt is atso apt to refer Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which is hereunder:

¶54

Section 13: Works in which copyright subsists.

¶55

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shatt subsist throughout lndia in the fottowing classes of^works, that^is to say,-

¶56

(a) originat [iterary, dramatic, musicaI and artistic works;

¶57

(b) cinematograph fitms

¶58

(2) Copyright sha(t not subsist in any work specified in sub-section^(1), other than a work to which the provisions of section^{40 or section 41 appty, unless,-}

¶59

(i) in the case of a pubtished work, the work^is first^pubtished in lndia, or where the work is first published outside lndia,^{the author is at} the^date of^such pubtication, or in a case where the author was^dead at that date, was at the time of his death, a citizen of India;

¶60

(ii) in the case of an unpubtished ,?ork other than a work of architecture, the author is at the date of the making of^{the work a citizenof lndiaor domiciledin} lndia; and (iji) in the case of work of architecture,^t is^(ocated in lndia

¶61

¶62

¶63

Explanation. ln the case of a worl'. of joint authorship, the conditions conferring copyright specified in this sub-section shatt be satisfied by att the authors of the work..

¶64

(3) Copyright shatt not subsist

¶65

(a) in any cinematograph fitm if a substantiat part of the fitm is an infringernent oF the copyngh[ in any o[her work;

¶66

(b) in any sound recording made in respect of a [iterary, dramatic or musical work, if in making the sound rccording, copyright in such work has been infringed.

¶67

(4) The copyright in a cinematograph frtm or a scund recording shatt not affect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which or a substantial part of which, the fitm, or, as the case may be, the sound recording is made.

¶68

(5) ln the case of work of architecture, copyright shatt subsist only in the artistic character and design and shatt not extend to^processes or methods oF construction.

¶69

8 (b). lt is atso apt to refer to Section 17 of the Copyrights Act,

¶70

1957, which is hereunder:-

¶71

SectionlT: First owner of copyright. Subject to the^provisions of this Act, the author of a work shatt be the first owner of the copyright therein: Provided that

¶72

(a) in the case of a titerary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course o[ hrs employment by the^proprietor of a^{newspaper,magazineor} simiLar periodical under a contract of servtce or apprenticeship, for^the purpose of pubtication in a newspaper, magazine or simitar Periodical, the said proprietor shatt, in the absence of any agreement to the^{contrary, be} the first owner of the copyright in the^{workin so far as the copyrightretates} to the^pubtication of the work in any^{newspaper, magazineor simitar} periodicat, or to the reproduction of the work for the^purpose of its being so pubtished, but in att other respects the author shalI be the first owner^{of the} copyright in the work;

¶73

(b) subject to the provisions of ctause^(a), in the case of a^{photographtaken,} or a^painting or portrait drawn,^{or an engravingor a cinematograph fitm} made, for vatuable consideration at the^instance of^{any person,such person} shatl., in the absence of any agreement to the^{contrary,be the first owner of} the copyright therein;

¶74

(c) in the case of a work made in the course of the^{author's employment} under a contract of service or apprenticeship,^{to which clause(a) or ctause} (b) does not appty, the emptoyer shatl, in the absence^{of any agreementto} the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright^therein;

¶75

(cc) in the case of any address or speech detivered in^pubtic, the^{person who} has detivered such address or speech or if such^{person has detiveredsuch} address or speech on behatf of any other^person, such other^person sha(t be the first owner of the copyright therein notwithstanding that the Person who detivers such address or speech, or, as the case may be, the^person on whose behatf such address or speech is detivered, is employed by any other person who arranges such address or speech or on whose behatf or premises such address or speech is detivered; (d) in the case of a Government work, Government shatt, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

¶76

(dd) in the case oF a work made or frrst pubtished by or under the direction or control of any i]ubtic undertaking, such pubtic undertaking sha(t, in the absence ot any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyrighI tlrerein.

¶77

Exptanation. For the purposes of this clause and section 28A, "pubtic undertaking" means

¶78

(i) an undertaking owned or controlted by Government, or

¶79

(ii) a Government company as defined in sectron 617 oi the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); or

¶80

(iii) a body corporate established by or under any Centrat, Provinciat or State Act:

¶81

(e) in the case oF a work to which the provisions of section 41 appty, the rnternationaI organization concerned shatt be the first owoer of the copyright therein Provided that rn case of any work incorporated in a cinematograph work, nothing contained in clauses (b) and (c) shatt affect the right of the author in the v/ork reFerred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 11.

¶82

8 (c). lt is atso apt to refer Section 69 of the Copyrights Act,

¶83

1957, which is hereunder:-

¶84

Section 69: Offences by companies (1) Where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsib{e to the aompany for, the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shatt be deemed to be guitty of such offence and shatI be tiabte to be proceeded against and punished accordingty:

¶85

Provrded that nothing contained in this sub-section shalt render any person tiable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowtedge or that he exercised atl due ditigence to prevent the commission of such offence.

¶86

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, and it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributabte to any negtigence on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shatI atso be deemed to be guitty of that offence and shatt be tiabte to be proceeded against and punished accordingty.

¶87

Exptanation.- For the purposes of this section

¶88

(a) "company" means anybody corporate and inctudes a firm or other association of persons; and

¶89

(b) "director", in retation to a firm means a partner in the firm

¶90

The attegations in the comptaint shows that the llyderabad Trmes,

¶91

which is the supptement and part of Time of lildia newspaper which is owned by M/s.Bennett Coteman and Company Limited. The petitioner-

¶92

¶93

accused No.1 is designated^{pubtisherand petitioner/ accused No'2is} Editor of Hyderabad^{Times and petitioner-accused No.3 is Chief Editor} of Time of lndia.^{The pubtrcationsof ctassifiedswere made in the Time} of lndia in the designated^{column of "Trmes ctassifiedsproperty"and} there is a dispute with^{regard to publicationof such classifiedsunder} Hyderabad Times^{and Times of lndja. However, as seenfrom the record} produced by the comptainant^{itsetf the paper shows that it is Times of} lnd.ia and not^{Hyderabad Times. Thisdocumerrt,is unimpeachable} documenq both the^{parties retied upon the same document'Therefore,} from such document it^{is ctear that the ctassified ads alteged to have} beencopiedorpubtishedintheTimesoflndiaandnotHyderabad Times, which is^{part of Hyderabad Times but editorship is accusedNo.2.} It is atso not in dispute^{that the same ctassifjedswhichare published in} the Times ctassifieds^{pubtished previoustyin the Hyderabad chronicte,} which is part of^{DeccanChronicte newspaper' The questionnowis} whether the ctassifieds,^{which are pubtishedin the Deccanchronicte,} can be said to^{be resutt of any minimal creativity and whetherthe} Deccan chronicte^{is the owner of such creativityof the ctassifieds.}

¶94

ln the^{present case, the ctassifieds are pubtishedby the Deccan} Chronicte on the^{basis of customer request'} This means the^classifieds are^pubtished basing^{on the information furnishedto the newspaper by} the concerned^{customer; suchinformatton wasput in order of} arrangement^{with some skitt.}

¶95

¶96

Deating with the copy rights, the Hon'bte Apex Court in "Eostern Book Company and others Vs. D.B. hlodak ond another" ' hetd that the mir-rimal creat'ivity is required so as to amount to artistlc work and enhancing the readabitity of their skitl woutd not amount to minimal creativity. ln the present case atso the information furnished is the customer, he is the owner of copy rights if any exists and in fact this Court says that arranging information in order what is furnishing rs not invotved any minimal creativity and such information is atready there with the customer before it is furnished such information and there is lack of minimal creativity. Further, even assumrng that such mjnimaI creativity is exrsts, the person who gave such information is the owner of such a copy rights. The rote of the newspaper herein is on[y putting certarn information in order for the purpose of effective readabitity and nothing more else. Therefore, mere enhancing the readabitity of creation of artistic work of other is not amount to any creattvity on the part of the comptainant. The person who enhanced the readabitity of the information as hetd by the Hon'bte Apex Court in Eostern Book Compony (cited supro) cannot said to be hotder of copy riqht. Therefore, this Court feets that there is no copy rights invotved in this case.

¶97

\ \

¶98

Deating with the third ground, admittedty the l.imes of lnclia rs pubtished by M/s.Bennett Coteman and Company Limitc.d and it has '⁽²⁰⁰⁸⁾ I Supreme Courf Cases I

¶99

:.+i,., +7{

¶100

¶101

distinct^juridicat personatity. The petitioners herein are in charge management of such company in carrylng the business activities of pubtication of newspaper. ln terms of Section 69 of the Act, 1957 the Company has to be main accused and the^{personsin chargeare [iabte} consequent upon the tiabitity frxed on the Company.^{Without the} company, the proceedings against the individuals,^{managingthe hetm of} affairs of company is rrot maintainab[e.^Therefore, the^criminal proceedings on this ground atso liabte to be quashed. Therefore, these petitions are required to be attowed.

¶102

Accordingty, CriminaI Petitions are^{attowed and the criminaI} proceedings against the peti tioners^- accused Nos.1^{to 3 are quashed. lt} rs made ctear that any observation^{made hereinfor disposalof these} criminaI petitions shatt not come in the^{way of any subsequent} proceedings. Miscettaneous apptications, if any,^{pendingshatl stand}

¶103

cIosed.

¶104

SD/- B. SARASWATHI ASSISTATN REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

Cry

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The XlaAdditional Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate,at Nampally' Hyderabad.}

¶110

The Station House Officer, Central Crime^{Station,DD, Police Station,} Hyderabad.

¶111

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶112

One CC to Sri D. SRINIVAS PRASAD,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶113

One CC to Sri A. CHANDRA^{SHAKER, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶114

Two CD Copies

Njb

BM PT\4.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410712023

COMMON ORDER

CRLP.Nos .4020 &^{4048 of 2018}

¶121

-,ar-:------.-
-. It- S i4i.'. -'..
,!.,
/ , ) ,,
2 E SEP 2U3
l'
; -,-. ..-.-.r.:,.

¶122

ALLOWING BOTH THE

¶123

CRIMINAL PETITIONS

¶124

fAq" 11\r\r:',

Anil Kumar v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Ghouse Vs State of Telangana

Vadthyavath Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Kurva Mallesh , Kurva Mallikarjun Vs The State of Telangna

Srinivas Chilakeshwaram Vs The State of Telangana

Badavath Kishan Vs The State of Telangana

Smt., K.Nirmala Rao Vs The State of Telangana