N.C. Sippy And Anr. vs Prem Kumar on 18 March, 1986
(12) As for the contention that the complaint as well as the evidence produce by the respondent at the pre-summons stage suffers from the vice of vagueness with regard to the time of the commission of offence and the period during which the petitioners were directors of the Company, suffice it to sav that Section 51 of the Act which defines the offence of infringement of compny right is very wide in amplitude. On its plain language it takes within its sweep not only the making for sale or hire of an artistic work in the form of cinematograph film but also selling, letting for hire or offering for sale or hire E by way of trade displays an infringing copy of !he artistic work. Further, distribution of infringing copies for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copy right is also made culpable there under. Hence, reproduction of the cinematograph film in which copy right cxists, as also sale or distribution of the infringing copy would be covered by the said Section. The Explanation to Section 2(f) of the Act which has been added by the Amendment Act 65 of 1984 expressly states that the video films shall also be deemed to be work produced by n process analogous to cinematography. As said by Sulaiman, C..T.. in Mary P. Marshal v. Ram Narflin I-al and another. Air 1934 Allahabad 922(4) "an infringement takes place not only when a book is reprinted, but also when a book in respect of which a copy right exists is sold. Therefore. there is a fresh cause of action on the sale of every book ". In this view of the matter, therefore, there can be no room for doubt that even if the infringing copies, viz. the video tapes of the film "Gorakhdhanda". had been prepared on the petitioners and their co-accused prior to 1984 when the Act was amended by introducing the piracy of cinematograph film as an offence by Amendment Act 65 of 1984. the accused in this case would be still liable if it is proved that at the relevant time the infringing copies of the infringed work were being sold or distributed for display etc. by the accused or their agents or servants etc. In this sense of the word, an offence under Section 63 of the Act can be legitimately looked upon as a continuing offence. Needless to say that the contention of- the petitioners that they were not directors of the Company in the year 1984 cannot be looked into by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. It will again be a matter for determination at the trial.